skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
The Babylonian Astrolabe: the Calendar of Creation, by Rumen K. Kolev
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Let's Conjoin
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Should we tolerate 'one planet conjuncts another?'
Yes
55%
 55% 
No
44%
 44% 

Author Message
3D



Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 125

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Ptolemy’s argument (Tetrabiblos, I.24) is that all rays converge in the centre of the earth, so since it is the relationship between the planets as if you were viewing them from the centre of the earth, a conjunction in longitude does not need to meet by latitude as well. Latitude only needs to be considered for occultations.


Hi Deb,

If all rays converge in the centre of the earth, as Ptolemy says, this could still be seen 3-dimensionally, couldn’t it? – What is not in line with his statement is the parallax corrected moon which is viewed from the surface of the earth. But even
from the centre of the earth, Sun and Sirius are still 39° apart when they make a ‘conjunction’ (or an alignment which is a better term for that IMO).

My concern is to make a distinction between a real conjunction (an occultation with an orb of say 3-5° in all directions, but always seen from the centre of the earth) and a ‘projected’ conjunction or alignment. Especially since celestial bodies like centaurs, Asteiods or Kuiper Belt Objects - all objects with a big ecliptical latitude - are being increasingly used. We would have to say at the same time which projection plane we are using: Ecliptic (longitude and latitude), Horizon (azimuth and altitude) or Celestial Equator (Right Ascension and Declination) to describe an aspect.

I think this would be a enrichment for today’s Astrology. At least, the 3-dimensional view has enriched my Astrology!

René
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3896
Location: England

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Rene

I can understand your point. Unfortunately, there does seem to be an inherent conflict between taking the 3D view and that which is centred upon the ecliptic/zodiac divisions. What we get from Ptolemy in the Tetrabiblos is too brief to do justice to the scheme. Kepler expands upon it in his Harmony of the World, which incorporates the reasoning of Ptolemy’s Harmonica. If you can get access to Kepler’s work, book IV, ‘causes of configurations’, goes into detail on why the earth is treated as a point rather than a body which has a differentiation between its centre and its surface. The Sun’s path encircles this point, and it is the way that planetary configurations unite or cause geometrical divisions of this circle that is ‘sensed by the earth’s soul’.

The explanation is several pages long with diagrams. Its philosophical principles are very impressive and well worth reading if you can get hold of it. Please understand that I am not saying that this approach is right and the 3D approach is wrong.

Best wishes
Deb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Coder



Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 143

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Christina: So I won't expect an example of the alleged noun "conjunct" from philosophy Wink. But I am a bit surprised tho' that when Deb wrote "astrology itself is a loose, symbolic language." you didn't react with "Ouch - oxymoron".

Regarding your point whether "sextile" is a verb with an active tense, I would say that lexicographic orthogonality (or lack of it, which you pointed out in an earlier post) is no more relevant to determining correct usage within the technical lexicon of astrology than it is to determining the formation of correct past participles in English; or the correct preposition (if any) to use in the Italian translation of "Xed to Y" where X and Y are verbs. And so on. One has to learn the 'language game' in use. (And let's not forget poor Pluto's recent experiences at the hands of committees of astronomers).

As the thread shows, the semantics of conjunction has more variability, and less consensus, than its syntax. Which implies the former will not settle the latter, except by fiat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christina



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 82
Location: usa

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Coder,

Quote:
But I am a bit surprised tho' that when …. you didn't react with "Ouch - oxymoron".


I thought Deb’s post was excellent, every word. Why you would suggest I think otherwise? I have not criticized the personal language choices of any forum members, nor would I ever. I am just glad that folks post their ideas. OTH, the thread topic relates to ideas surrounding the use of the word conjunct without targeting any one individual. Perhaps you were joking. NTL, it comes across as mud slinging (and at the expense of our honored host). Mud slinging is poor sportsmanship. Besides, you are on the Imperialist (Patrician) team. Mud rights belong to the Plebes.

Back to your request for examples - Your original statement concerned my comment that conjunct was adapted as a noun. Clearly, my response was unclear if, after my last post, you still want examples. I will attempt to clarify. I used the words, “mathematics, philosophy and logic”. It would have been more correct to say “mathematics and philosophy (logic).” I must have had 'conjunctions on my mind' to use the conjunction “and” instead of parentheses. In addition, I said,

Quote:
Philosophy has many branches of which logic is one.


You indicated that you were familiar with the use of conjunct as a noun in logic, which is why I did not provide examples. If you still have reason for examples, I will provide them. They will be from logic (as a branch of philosophy). IOW, from philosophy (logic).

Christina
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Coder



Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 143

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
Quote:
astrology itself is a loose, symbolic language

A symbolic language uses notation. Astrology uses notation. Therefore astrology is a symbolic language??? That is not (aristotelean) inference; nor any other recognized valid form of inference. It is a type of conclusion-making that has been termed "metaphorical reasoning" - although they it smells to me more of rampant metonymy than metaphor.

A symbolic language uses notation, but (for example) chemical formulae do not constitute a language by being a notation. Astrologers' common representation of the facts they deal with are a notation. Astrologers do not use this representation to think with astrologically - that suffices to distinguish astrological thinking from formal systems (e.g. axiomatic set theory). What Deb wrote is not self-contradictory - merely invitationally ambiguous about the correct reference of the word "symbol".

So my view (see my first post) that this topic is basically a non-runner, rather a surreptitious plea for a higher standard of astrological writing. Which, demonstrably, cannot be simply stated for want of someone somewhere taking it as a politcally incorrect ad hominen critique of their Weltanschauung. Or, vide PC Policeperson, of someone else's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3896
Location: England

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Coder, I was just giving a casual opinion in an informal manner. I think most members understood my point even without the three paragraph analysis. Your post is a demonstration of how we lose the ability to communicate effectively when we try to get too clever about it.

Christina, I like the cut of your jib. Promise not to use phrases like "invitationally ambiguous" and I will officially join your unwashed mob.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christina



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 82
Location: usa

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Deb,

You have my word Smile – especially since I am not clever enough to put words like "invitationally ambiguous" together. I hope an occasional oxy’ is acceptable, such as borrowing ‘eloquent silence’ from the muses regards the starry night sky.

Kind Readers – Please recall that the modern day “unwashed” (aka plebes) are likely to possess designer soap, thrice filtered water and college educations (tho’ I neither claim nor deny these for myself).

Christina
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
... and I will officially join your unwashed mob.


I always detected a hint of something unclean around here – but nothing like that which “smells to me more of rampant metonymy than metaphor”. That would be an outright stench, I’m sure. Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
3D



Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 125

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Deb,

I was ‘not connected’ for a few days and have only now read your post. You write:

Quote:
Unfortunately, there does seem to be an inherent conflict between taking the 3D view and that which is centred upon the ecliptic/zodiac divisions.

I tried to understand what kind of ‘inherent conflict’ you mean, but couldn’t figure it out. Checking Kepler’s Harmonicae Mundi, book IV again didn’t help me either.

I can see such an inherent conflict between the tropical and the sidereal zodiac - they are both competing in the same 2-dimensional reference plane.

But regarding a conflict ecliptic/zodiac and 3D, I can’t follow you. The ecliptical zodiac is one of the many possible 2-dimensional images of the 3D celestial sphere, with the celestial bodies projected perpendicular on it. Other possible 2D images of the 3D geocentric ‘reality’ being, e.g. declination, latitude, local space charts etc.

Paper (or a computer screen) is 2-dimensional, so horoscopes are 2D images. I was only pleading to use more than one 2D projection. Especially to look at the latitude to see if a conjunction is a real conjunction or just an alignment, a projected conjunction. I think a real conjunction or even an occultation is stronger in its influence. Just think of the difference between a normal full moon and a lunar eclipse.

Kind regards
René

P.S. I am a big Kepler fan, too and have read all his books. Great insights!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
azcelt



Joined: 27 May 2007
Posts: 27
Location: Flagstaff.Arizona

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As an english woman living in the usa [For 27 years] I used to be appalled at the lack of skills the colonials had in using 'Our 'language[incorrectly!]
I now realise that everything is changing and evolving all the time and I have also learned that having something sweet as well as savoury on my plate at the same time is not "wrong".Go with the flow.Language is only about getting an idea,feeling across -it is about COMMUNICATION and if "conjuncting" communicates the essence of this astrological information across to more people [from a wider global population]than cojoining then perhaps using "conjuncting" is the way to go.You obviously know the gramatically correct usage so perhaps you can ignore our ignorance.It is soooo awsome to have this global forum and I personally feel that sometimes it is obvious when our weird unpredictable english language can completely lose a non native speaker so perhaps it is time to make our language a little more accessable. Anyone who reads Astrology books sees and understands "conjunctions" Vive la differance!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Time has passed, but my discomfort at hearing that two planets are conjuncting is just as acute as ever. Sick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For those who weren't around back then:

On page 2 Deb wrote: "It’s amazing how this poll has hovered over the balance."

At the beginning 'No' was a bit ahead. As more votes came in the two were neck and neck (Why, I do believe they conjoined! Cool ). 'Yes' would just squeak past and then 'No' would overtake it. Slowly, gradually, 'Yes' crept ahead.

Barbarians. Evil or Very Mad


One of the great moments in Skyscript history took place on page 3 when Kim Farnell gave us a door and a window.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3896
Location: England

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear me - you've actually been monitoring the progress of the votes ! That's sad Kirk. I mean, I prefer 'conjoined' and correct my students when they say 'conjuncting' etc., but, in the greater scheme of things, there is so much more to worry about. Like the fact that, historically conjoining meant joining by any aspect and not just conjuncting Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
Dear me - you've actually been monitoring the progress of the votes ! That's sad Kirk. I mean, I prefer 'conjoined' and correct my students when they say 'conjuncting' etc., but, in the greater scheme of things, there is so much more to worry about. Like the fact that, historically conjoining meant joining by any aspect and not just conjuncting Smile


Now wait a minute! Today was the first time I've looked at this thread in years. It hasn't been ongoing. However, I probably should keep an eye on it and get in touch with the proper astrological associations if 'Yes' pulls too far ahead. We don't want to appear to the public at large as a bunch of dolts. We very well may be dolts. We just don't want it to show.

Now, we all have our grammar boo-boos. My point then and now is that it looks so . . . . . uneducated to have key terminology based on a grammatical error. We might not talk real good in our presentations but our toolbox should at least hold quality tools.


Quote:
. . . in the greater scheme of things, there is so much more to worry about. Like the fact that, historically conjoining meant joining by any aspect and not just conjuncting Smile


Oh dear. Conjunctions aren't even aspects. Is it possible to blame Ptolemy? He seems to be a popular choice for finger pointing.




Edited to correct a grammar boo-boo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated