86
Paul wrote: The hunger pains in your stomach when you can't afford to buy food cos you lost your job?, the homelessness that occurs when the bank takes over your house, the inability to pay for the university course you had hoped for which may cripple your financial ability in the future etc etc.
I don?t think you are imagining what Psychology is in the usual dictionary way. Pain is psychological it is an emotion, as is hunger. Romance is emotional attraction, therefore psychological. Career, which we can define as being an activity that occupies your mind/body for significant portions of the day for a number of years is psychological. Everything you do or experience on this planet is psychological. I don't think you will be able to find a question asked in an astrological setting that isn't psychologically generated and the outcomes non psychological ones. A Horoscope is also a Mental Construct , let? s not forget this psychological reality either!

If someone asks an astrologer if they will be able to pay the University fees they are really asking how will they will be feeling in the future in relation to this issue, or what they think is a matter which is having a specific impact on their mental and physical well being.

If you conceptualise astrological endeavours in the way you appear to then you would see the objective of the exchange as saying to the person there is an 81.34 % or whatever chance of you being able to pay these fees based solely on the chart patterns of your delectation. Whereas the Psychological focus is to enter into a discussion as to why are they asking this question, in addition to pondering on the horoscopy of whether or not it is a positive/negative to be seriously or not concerned with and so forth. That being said if it was me I would probably start of by saying have you got any money to pay the fees and if not have you thought of printing some, getting a better paid job, suggesting the wife goes on the ?game? , etc. Common sense, similar to grounded Liz?s ??get on with it....?.

Incidentally Melanie used to be a course tutor at the CPA!!

87
Nixx wrote: I don?t think you are imagining what Psychology is in the usual dictionary way. Pain is psychological it is an emotion, as is hunger. Romance is emotional attraction, therefore psychological. Career, which we can define as being an activity that occupies your mind/body for significant portions of the day for a number of years is psychological. Everything you do or experience on this planet is psychological.
No. Everything which we experience we may process via our psychology but not everything in life is psychological. One can fall off a ladder or have a brick fall on one's head and be injured. Oh sure, your psychology will be impacted and you will process the pain psychologically but ultimately when we, generally, do not associate a brick falling on your head with something psychological. It's a big old bump on your head!

We might also say that most things in life are experienced as an embodied being and are therefore physical. Falling in love releases endorphins and hormones in the brain. Your career generates income etc etc.
Everything is processed psychologically yes, but is also lived as an embodied being.
If someone asks an astrologer if they will be able to pay the University fees they are really asking how will they will be feeling in the future in relation to this issue, or what they think is a matter which is having a specific impact on their mental and physical well being.
I'm afraid I find this way too condescending. Some people just want to know if they can afford the University fees in time so that they can plan and adjust with that in mind. I think it would be ridiculously patronising to tell that person "oh don't worry dear, who cares if you get in or not, what's important is how you feel about it at the time".
In horary if someone asks "where are my missing keys", I'd love to watch the exchange unfold when the astrologer says "who cares, let's talk about how you're feeling right now trapped outside your house with kids due to arrive home in the next half hour and now way of getting inside and snow due on the way. Let's talk about how you're feeling about all that instead".
Whereas the Psychological focus is to enter into a discussion as to why are they asking this question, in addition to pondering on the horoscopy of whether or not it is a positive/negative to be seriously or not concerned with and so forth.
Yes, I know what psychology is and where it can be useful. Sometimes a psychological approach is the better approach. My point is that not all things are.
That being said if it was me I would probably start of by saying have you got any money to pay the fees and if not have you thought of printing some, getting a better paid job, suggesting the wife goes on the ?game? , etc. Common sense, similar to grounded Liz?s ??get on with it....?.
Yes really the entire psychological approach could be summed up by Liz's "get on with it" approach. Or, as I prefer, the "get over it and move on" approach.

In the meantime people who have gotten over it still need to know should they accept this new job, where are those missing keys, when a career highlight might be, whether such and such a romance is probable, and general guidance about their lives and its unfolding as an embodied being.

88
Paul wrote: No. Everything which we experience we may process via our psychology but not everything in life is psychological. One can fall off a ladder or have a brick fall on one's head and be injured. Oh sure, your psychology will be impacted and you will process the pain psychologically but ultimately when we, generally, do not associate a brick falling on your head with something psychological. It's a big old bump on your head!

How about 2 identical twins aged 35 and 3 mths having two identical bricks fall on their head on the same day and place, from the same height, etc. One twin says handy a few days of work and the other goes this pain is unbearable. Or ouch. Ignoring the psychological differences, or lack of in your mind, how do you horoscopically process these two ??lumps?? and reactions to them. Is one more lumpy and the other not even fit to be labelled a lump? To make it more interesting let?s create a third twin with ?congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (CIPA)?, who fails to notice or feel the brick on the head. Can we lump her in with the other two ?

90
I haven't noticed this about Aquarius but it would not surprise me if it was a late 60's or early 70's view that in the imagined coming or already existent 'AGE OF'' it was seen as more cool than others to be this solar type.

It used to be mooted Gemini and Capricorn got a bad press in the cookbooks, my hazy memory of these tomes persuades me Virgo and Scorpio would be in the next group of useless degenerates.

More interestingly there does appear to be the idea, 20th century perhaps ?, although some argue this stuff goes back to Plato in principle, that the aim of human life from an astrologers perspective is to, in Campion?s words about Plato, ''break out of the cycle of death and rebirth by adopting a scholarly, moral and healthy lifestyle'. (I take it you aren't so keen on this as you seem a bit miffed with the current norm of seeing Horosocpy as a means to refer back to this ideal or improved 'self' idea or explore what we, or the 'I' is doing here). With this in mind there did seem to be in some more popular texts, albeit not necessarily explicitly, a hierarchical status in the signs going from Aries to Pisces, i.e. the younger or more corrupt soul ''chooses'' to be an Aries and the person born with the awareness service and the transcendence of desire is the ultimate goal is ''this time'' a Pisces.

In the Psychological Astrology ''press' Libra used to strike me me as getting the ''evil'' lens more often than others. One reason its lack of human or animal symbolism so it is not all that bothered about others or suffering as long as the walls are magnolia, the day out at the soulless craft fair is still on and everyone is awfully nice. This could be me projecting though, I have been on this ongoing, albeit loosing, crusade to have Libran babies burnt at birth.

The question I would like to ask you though Kirk is are you sure that these alleged Middle Platonists who invented Western Horoscopy circa 100 BCE were not of the mindset the Sun sign is or was the most fundamental dynamical pivot of the Western nativity ? I suppose it might come down to is there a copy of the minutes available. My understanding is they remain a touch elusive. Either way we could get into the so what if they did or didn?t banter.

91
Nixx wrote: The question I would like to ask you though Kirk is are you sure that these alleged Middle Platonists who invented Western Horoscopy circa 100 BCE were not of the mindset the Sun sign is or was the most fundamental dynamical pivot of the Western nativity ? I suppose it might come down to is there a copy of the minutes available. My understanding is they remain a touch elusive. Either way we could get into the so what if they did or didn?t banter.
I know this was asked to Kirk (and I'm sure he'll answer), but from the surviving texts, Sun signs were not used as a unique thing in and of themselves as describing a person. In other words, no one was called an Aries just because they were born under the Sun sign of Aries. At least I've never found any evidence of this.

Sun signs were not used this way until the 19th century or so.

Now what people did prior to the surviving texts is anyone's guess, but it would be a departure.

92
Kirk wrote:
What has interested and surprised me is that the Sun in general didn't seem to be as important or focal as it is now. The impression I get is that in ancient and medieval works there's plenty of talk about the Sun being important and central in astrological theory and structure, but when it comes to actual delineation the Sun often appears to serve as a kind of so-so factor, with more interest taken in the Lord of the ASC, 1st house planets, and the Moon. The Sun was important in such matters as determining the sect of the chart and the phase status of the planets, but from what I can tell the old ones didn't take much interest in routinely granting importance to the zodiacal and house placement of the Sun along with its aspects.

Maybe there are newly translated works that show the Sun to have been used more prominently.
I'm surprised this surprises you Kirk. :D

I agree that the Sun is given little emphasis in much of medieval and renaissance natal astrology. Although I dont think we can imply that astrologers in this period ever thought of the Sun as astrologically 'so-so'. Quite the reverse.

The way the Sun is presented in most traditional sources its very like the all powerful Director standing back from the central stage but actually controlling all the action.

Just think of the areas that the Sun or seasons determine:

1 The Tropical Zodiac-Determined by the position of the Sun
2 The Domicile Rulerships in relationship to the seasons (according to Ptolemy)
3 The Exaltations in relation to the seasons (according to Ptolemy)
4 Planetary Sect ie noctural or diurnal
5 The Phases of the planets in relation to the Sun
6 Antiscion or Solstice points for planets. Days of equal daylight (ie declination of the Sun)
7 Contra-Antiscion. Planets equally distant from the Sun's Aries/Libra equinoctial axis are seen as connected through Contra-Antiscion. Such degrees are equal in ascensional time.
8 Hyleg Calculation. The position of the astrological Sun for Hyleg calculation
9 Lots of Fortune and Spirit. The position of the astrological Sun for calculating Lots/Parts of Fortune and Spirit. The Sun is linked to the Lot of Spirit.

From a historical perpective what you and Mithra6 have said is undeniably correct. However, I think a large factor to this is that Ptolemy's naturalistic approach came to dominate traditional astrology and earlier ancient approaches to the Sun were gradually discarded or forgotten. Its clear that ancient astrologers such as Vettius Valens or Varahamihira had a much more spiritual understanding of the meaning of the Sun. Ironically, this is in some respects closer to the view of modern astrologers than that of Ptolemy.

I have made this argument in a previous thread on the Traditional Forum:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... 38161776b9

I will quote Valens here on the Sun:
The all seeing Sun, then, being truly fire-like and the light of the mind, the organ of perception of the soul, is significant at a birth for kingly office, hegemony, mind, practical wisdom, outward form, motion, height of fortune, public, registration, action, popular, leadership, judgement, father, mastership, friendship, person of high repute, the honors of images, statues, and crowns of office, arch-priests of the fatherland ... of places. Of the parts of the body, it has authority over the head, sense-organs, right-eye, ribs, heart, respiratory or sensory motion, tendons. It also has authority over the essence of gold, of fruits of wheat and barley. It is of the diurnal sect, lemon-yellow, and sharp as for taste.
The Anthology, Vettius Valens. Book 1:1, translated by Robert Schmidt
I think we can see hints of the Stoic philosophy in Valens definition. It contrasts to the more naturalistic, empirical outlook of Ptolemy inspired by Aristotlean philosophy with reference only to qualities such as hot and dry in regards the Sun. Ancient astrologers saw the Sun as the luminary symbolising spirit and the higher mind or nous while the physical body and material matters were seen as symbolised by the the Moon. Hence the Lot of Fortune was the 'Lot of the Moon' because it was concerned with the body, material matters and worldy reputation. It also represented our fated destiny. In contrast the 'Lot of Spirit' was the 'lot of the Sun' because it concerned our intentional will/mind and represented our spirit (Daimon).

Ptolemy rejected this lot and the associated meaning of the Sun it implied because he rejected the spiritual world view of most of his predecessors.

However, its perfectly clear that the hellenistic tradition had long linked the Sun to spiritual matters as the 9th house was given the title 'House of God' and was the joy of the Sun. Indeed astrologers such as Rhetorius refer to the 9th house as 'the place of the Sun'.

I am not suggesting ancient astrologers ever delineated the Sun on its own the way modern astrologers do. However, it was more central in natal delineation in some ancient sources than it became in medieval and renaissance astrology. Clear examples of this are preserved in texts such as Antiochus and Porphyry.

The first step in ancient natal astrology was to determine the sect light. In 50% of charts the Sun was therefore the predominator. From this the dispositor (either domicile and/or bound ruler) of the sect light was very important in natal analysis. This contrasts to Ptolemy who restricted the hellenistic predominator technique to just a process to work out the length of life (hyleg).

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

93
Well, I'm almost exactly two years late to this thread, but I will throw in my 2 cents. According to the information available on skyscript regarding aquarius:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aquarius.html
The tendency towards 'detachment' runs like a thread through many of this sign's notable characteristics. On the one hand it gives a remarkable capacity for self-recognition and a crystal-clear reception of universal intelligence. At a spiritual level, it allows pure vision and penetrating perception. On the other, such self-reliant understanding inclines the Aquarian away from the impressions of others, often making them often appear to be a little 'different' and apart from their community.
Aquarius does indeed give people an independent streak, however I get the impression that it doesnt do so directly, but rather it is caused indirectly due to the tendency to be so detached (from the perceived rest of society), thus by default one ends up becoming incidentally unique.

94
Recently I was describing to somebody how the French Revolution was synchronous with Pluto in Aquarius opposition Uranus in Leo, and how Aquarius here represented the common people. And then I thought of the contradiction that most Aquarians are not political, or part of groups - as is often a description for the Aquarius-ruled eleventh house. Political people are typically cardinal signs, and group bunnies are more likely to be Capricorns than Aquarians.

95
According to some astrologers Aquarius N?mesis is the tribal instinct.
I suppose this is one of the reasons there are more Aquarius Sun astrologers than in any other sign.Astrology provides them with a non-tribal identity.They become Aquarius rather thanjust citizens of a nation or tribe

96
I really like Jaimini's synopsis on the signs. He describes Aquarius with the following keywords:-

-Humanatarian
-Individuality
-Islands
-Ponds
-Shores
-Tanks
If it's not astronomically true, it's not astrologically true.