It's also fun playing the role of curmudgeon ? but that too needs to be done with a light touch. Mostly I think you do it very well, and I'll second Andrew's hope that you'll go on doing it, but I get the impression you sometimes forget it's a role.

This curmudgeon thing has come up before and I've applied the light touch by going along with it. However, I'm not sufficiently foolish to turn this all into a game and demonstration of a role-playing talent, wondering how best to be disagreeable ? perhaps even surly ? with each new topic or post. This is the real me expressing my real thoughts as best I can, learning as I go along what my truest and deepest thoughts are. I'm writing plenty now that will surely cause me to wince later. So be it.

Previously you wrote:
Quote:
Astrology seems to bring in excessively subjective opinions
but in your latest post you write
Quote:
all of astrology [is] fundamentally subjective. Client work is individually subjective; all of astrology is collectively subjective.
I'm a bit puzzled how opinions can be excessively subjective in a field which is fundamentally subjective, but no doubt you can reconcile them.

How could you be puzzled? My statements are quite clear: ?excessively subjective opinions? in contrast to ?fundamentally subjective?. Some types of wine are meant to be sweet. If the vintner isn't very good at his art and craft they are excessively so. Astrology is fundamentally subjective in that it concerns personal experience, individually and collectively. But that foundation of personal experience needs moderation through reason to bring forth interpersonal understanding. Collectively accepted standards of excellence in the use of reason help keep excessively self-centered personal experience in check.

You could be Liz Greene's PA Kirk with this rational ,common sense, real world, fused with intelligence perspective towards this interesting and potentially valuable pastime.

I have a similar lens and take the view that if we just leave this divorced from reality astrology unchallenged then we are likely to be seen as superstitious dreamers for a very long time.

In my experience all astrology forums need a 'Geoffrey Dean'.

Kirk has raised an important point about the possible contradictions between personal and mundane charts. By chance I attended a talk by Meira Epstein at the Warburg Institute in London on the 14th November.

The subject was Ibn Ezra and particularly his astrology book Sefer Ha'Moladot. He contrasts the klal (collective) and the individual - spelt peh resh teth which I shall refrain from transliterating. He gives eight examples of collective charts that could overule that of the individual. To give one example supposing that your natal chart gives testimony of health but the Aries ingress chart for your country indicates plague which one will win out? With the permission of the speaker I quote her conclusion "Ibn Ezra's unambiguous conclusion is that the general prevails over the individual."

The speaker also mentioned a couple of lines of his poetry and I thought I would share this.

"The heavenly wheel and the signs changed their natural course at his birth, so that if he decided to trade in candles the sun would never set,and if he decided to to make shrouds no one would ever die!

I gather that the Warburg will publish transcripts if anyone wishes to read further

Matt

Kirk wrote:This is the real me expressing my real thoughts as best I can, learning as I go along what my truest and deepest thoughts are.

I'm sorry if you were offended by what I wrote Kirk, but I was trying to make light of your approach; I'll try to remember, next time I see a disagreeable remark from you, that you want it to be taken seriously.

But that foundation of personal experience needs moderation through reason to bring forth interpersonal understanding. Collectively accepted standards of excellence in the use of reason help keep excessively self-centered personal experience in check.

I value reason as highly as you do, Kirk. But where it leads depends on what one takes as given and I've found that many people who profess a reverence for reason never bother to examine their own beliefs - often, indeed, don't even recognise them as being beliefs, but simply see them as self-evident truths.

This particular digression stems from something that you wrote previously:

Astrology seems to bring in excessively subjective opinions, religious or philosophical bias ...

This suggests to me that you see philosophical and religious beliefs as being somehow overlaid on top of a collectively accepted objective truth. For many people those beliefs are the ground on which they stand and, for them, astrology - and every other form of analysis - can only operate with the raw material of those beliefs. There are, as you say, 'collectively accepted standards of excellence in the use of reason', but there is no collectively accepted objective truth, and anyone who assumes that there is will constantly perceive stupidity where there is, in fact, only difference of perspective.

Malcolm

I'll just interject here that what is reasonable to some is not so reasonable to others. some people just plain think differently than others, and its okay to have different opinions. I do not agree that there is only one way to see the sky. And all the certainty on the part of some persons wont make me agree. If it doesn't make sense to you, dont smile and nod. well my two cents.

Granny

Kirk wrote:

It's also fun playing the role of curmudgeon ? but that too needs to be done with a light touch. Mostly I think you do it very well, and I'll second Andrew's hope that you'll go on doing it, but I get the impression you sometimes forget it's a role.

This curmudgeon thing has come up before and I've applied the light touch by going along with it. However, I'm not sufficiently foolish to turn this all into a game and demonstration of a role-playing talent, wondering how best to be disagreeable ? perhaps even surly ? with each new topic or post. This is the real me expressing my real thoughts as best I can, learning as I go along what my truest and deepest thoughts are. I'm writing plenty now that will surely cause me to wince later. So be it.

Previously you wrote:
Quote:
Astrology seems to bring in excessively subjective opinions
but in your latest post you write
Quote:
all of astrology [is] fundamentally subjective. Client work is individually subjective; all of astrology is collectively subjective.
I'm a bit puzzled how opinions can be excessively subjective in a field which is fundamentally subjective, but no doubt you can reconcile them.

How could you be puzzled? My statements are quite clear: ?excessively subjective opinions? in contrast to ?fundamentally subjective?. Some types of wine are meant to be sweet. If the vintner isn't very good at his art and craft they are excessively so. Astrology is fundamentally subjective in that it concerns personal experience, individually and collectively. But that foundation of personal experience needs moderation through reason to bring forth interpersonal understanding. Collectively accepted standards of excellence in the use of reason help keep excessively self-centered personal experience in check.

That's one point of view; however, I began my training in astrology from a scientific perspective: forecasting the weather, and learning stellar cartography. There is nothing "subjective" about applying astrological principles in forecasting the world's climate and weather.

We have to remember that Astrology is a science and gave birth to many of the other sciences people take for granted today: astronomy, medicine, meteorology, and also gave birth to mathematics ~ the language of all the sciences.

The one area where this is lacking is in the field of psychology, which is the weakest of the known "logy" sciences. Here, when astrology is used, we can strengthen this field, but the application continues to be problematic, since it is tied to the subjective views of a wide variety of practicers, all at different levels of knowledge and skill.

I think you've taken the "subjective" thing about Astrology as a whole much too far, as this could be a response to "psychological astrology" which is still very much in its infancy, and was never a part of astrology until the 20th century. This use of astrology is subjective, and tends very much to lean towards the opinions of those who would use astrology as a vehicle to practice psychology, but it in no way means that Astrology as a whole is subjective. It just doesn't.

Astrology, by definition, is a science. It cannot be solely packaged into subjective use, although many use it as such. That is a personal choice; however, the best way to prove that it works is to continue to apply it as a science with effects on both the physical and metaphysical worlds which astrology effectively bridges and always has since it's beginnings.

I find it wholy amusing that the ssciences forget they are all based in philosophy. Mathmatics is philosophy, it is a method of expressing ideas, and it all comes from watching the stars at night.

just something to think about, all hail Zero... Granny

Dave M. wrote:I aplogize for not being trained in 'Classical Astrology' as the majority of those who frequent this Forum are. But as Uranus is retrograde at this time whilst Saturn is direct...aren't both Planets 'applying' to each other right now? What if Saturn is retro and Uranus direct, are they not then 'mutually seperating'?...or what if they are both retro at the same time, for that matter?

My understanding of how I practice classical astrology is that I use both the tropical zodiac and constellational astrology in my practice. This means I apply sidereal methods, as well as tropical in observations, and techniques. I also use the fixed stars. The word 'classical' is sometimes misinterpreted as somehow being stuck int he past, as some who would contend that classical astrologers today don't use the trans-Saturnian planets, for instance, however, I always have, and still do.

Re/ the Saturn-Uranus opposition: In mundane astrology, we can see the influences of this opposition worldwide. For example, on November 26, 2008, in southern India, in the city of Mumbai, we see Saturn/Uranus opposition along the Geodetic Equivalent AC of southern India at 18/19 Virgo/Pisces with the terror attacks taking place as Uranus stations direct.

Just logging on after a long break. Has the Saturn/Uranus opposition been discussed as it relates to Obama's natal chart?

I am looking at the transits to his Mars coming up in December, and worrying a bit.

housemouse wrote:Just logging on after a long break. Has the Saturn/Uranus opposition been discussed as it relates to Obama's natal chart?

I am looking at the transits to his Mars coming up in December, and worrying a bit.

Not much to worry about. The Saturn/Uranus opposition will contact his relocated Mars (Washington DC) in the 5th and 11th houses.