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

How many Astrological Methods do we need?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Martin Lewicki



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 46

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My ditty on this....

http://au.geocities.com/marty_0750/articles/captain.html

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:
I don't see how you get from here:

Quote:
If there's a distinction to be made then there would be the purely symbolical view of 1° of right ascension equals 1 year and the view that directions should reflect the year.


to here:

Quote:
The key then depends on the technical view of the astrologer. This may not simply be an attempt to be more precise, but rather a search for a theory that appeals to you.


Mars directed to Jupiter is Mars directed to Jupiter regardless of what key we use. The key tells us "when" - nothing more no matter what reasons we may come up with for using a particular key. We can, of course, look for a theory we like in any subject for any reason. That seems to be beside the point. Claiming one key has to be correct in all instances and therefore every other key is necessarily wrong is just as easily a search for an appealing theory as any other. The real problem, as I see it, is trying to square all of astrology with the scientific-materialist worldview. If there is more than one astrological way to skin a cat then it is the scientific viewpoint that may need to change, not astrology.

Tom

Hi Tom. I'm not sure if I totally understood your question but I try to look at the basis of the distinction. The 1°=1 year method gives a cycle of 360 years. This reflects the 360° of the zodiac. 360° reflects the 'ideal year' of 12 lunar months of 30 days wich formed the basis of the signs. This could be viewed as arbitrary like Kepler wrote about this or could be accepted as a symbolic representation. Although I feel a preference for a scientific view I'm willing to have a look at the symbolic values too.

The key of Naibod is one of the first attempts to make the cycle look like the year of 365.25 days. However, since the year is irregular due to the changing speed of the Sun, Naibod's key can also be seen as using too 'mean' values. More perfections can be made. Discussion about this is difficult because everybody thinks to have the correct key.

Making calculations for several keys I managed to 'find' events for the same direction every key. I also believed that a direction should at least should be exact within a margin of a couple of months before and after exact. I never believed it should be exact to the week or so but finding deviations of several years using directions made me doubt strongly about them. I was about to quit looking at them but when Martin wrote in the mystery rectification answer thread that:
Quote:
So, assuming that the birth time was correctly noted, it is almost certainly relevant that this Saturn squared the Asc around the age of 16. Yes, I know that this was four years before the accident! But there is still a Saturn influence on the Asc until it reaches its next aspect (which is another square, this time from the Moon, and not helpful).
Being always in the assumption that the event had to be within several months of the direction, this remark revealed that primary directions show a bigger picture of periods in life rather than pinpointed events. This suddenly helped me to understand long periods in my life which I couldn't using transits alone.

This means that the keys are less important for the sake of exactness, although they can deviate a few years at high age. The deviations based upon the use of latitude or not can even make bigger deviations. However this point of view is different from the 'key' issue but rather based upon perspective.

Perhaps it may be impossible to find a satisfying key from a 'scientific' point of view and even the concept of timecycle x = timecycle y could be considered arbitrary from a strict scientific astrology point of view, and then perhaps only the transits would be acceptable. But even I wouldn´t go too far in my ´scientific´ views for otherwise I should abandon astrology entirely. And that is something I don´t intend to do.

Recently I´ve been working on a new key but it doesn´t mean that I believe to have found the final solution. Maybe I will open a thread on this but next week I'm going on a holiday so I may have not enough time for it. If I don´t manage to find a satisfying key then I´ll simply use 1° = 1year. At least it would make things much easier to calculate Smile .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ed F



Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My thoughts on the subject go to the question of what we believe astrology to be. We vary from those who believe in physical causation to those who believe it's a collection of modelling tools and methods to those who believe it's an oracle. And there's some validity to each position.

I come from a software development background (though I started on astrology long before that). I think there's a very good analogy between astrology and the kinds of modelling methods used in many disciplines including software development.

Each such approach can have different ends to its analysis (eg the analysis of the viability of a business can be taken from a number of perspectives), different emphases, different elements to be considered, different ways of assigning them value, different methods for integrating the elements, and different ways of interpreting the results. In the end, hopefully, there is some sense of methodology (the evaluation of the methods used and their effectiveness for their chosen purpose).

These are all human attempts to understand phenomena and as often as not to predict outcomes according to a model that can extract what is important about a set of phenomena, and finally to use the information gained for appropriate action.

Astrology is no different, but like many of the kinds of modelling done in other disciplines, there tends to be a lack of methodology (in the sense of how to evaluate effectiveness to purpose).

- Ed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
unique_astrology



Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 79

Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:
Does Mars in the 7th mean divorce or a Mars type spouse? Or both? Our quest for precision ought to be to sort that out rather than fretting over Naibod or Placidus to find the exact date of the marriage. Perhaps precision in timing is overrated or we have a lot more work to do with more important things before we tackle that one.

Tom[/color]


I don't think there any absolute answers to any aspect or position in a chart by any planet. That posited Mars in the 7th in the charts of 400 million people will be expressed in many different ways at many different times for each of them. There may be some similarities and in some cases it could probably be said that the experiences were "identical", but if there were an absolute answer all astrologers, with a certain length of experience or drawing from the shared work of others, would be making absolutely correct predictions on a daily basis. The same goes for the Sun, the Moon, and the rest of the planets.

But what if a technique, tested over decades, in thousands of charts, that used only what really existed in nature and nothing that was presumed by man (except for what attributes might be assigned to a planet or a combination of planets), that claimed to be an excellent tool for timing, in comparison to available tools, was to be presented? Wouldn't it be in the best interest of astrologers, no matter what other technique they favored, to have an earnest look at it? Isn't having as accurate a time for a nativity a desired starting position?

It seems to me that for years astrologers have been adopting techniques that have been handed down as dogma without any proof of how much testing (in amount of time or number of charts used) was done using this principle before it was recorded to be handed down through centuries. How long was the life expectancy of people (astrologers) centuries ago? How far were they able to travel to share and/or collaborate on findings or ideas in their lifetime? How many contemporaries did they have to communicate and work with? How many did some serious research of their own or had access to extensive research of their peers? And again, what was the length and breadth of that research? How many subject charts did they have to work with? And how much feedback did they get?

One would think that if a technique were presented that could verify or establish a correct or very close time of birth (in a much shorter period of time than is claimed to be necessary for current methods of rectification) using possibly a single life experience, that serious astrologers would not hesitate to give it a fair try before passing judgment on it. Astrologers are rather fond of saying that critics of astrology should not be making judgments about something they haven't studied - the same applies to astrologers and astrological techniques they haven't studied.

I have presented a new technique and make claims for its accuracy in timing. I have presented links to where instructions in 2 different methods on how to perform the calculations may be found, along with many finished examples which may be be examined and/or reconstructed.To my knowledge not 1 person (members of a group that would be quick to proclaim their open-mindedness) has given the technique a try. Perhaps the open minded claim should be re-examined.

Not picking on you Tom. I respect your knowledge. This seemed to me to be an opening to opine on this subject.

Bob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralScrutinizer



Joined: 16 Jun 2009
Posts: 57

Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"How Many Astrological Methods Do We Need?"

That's a great, thought-provoking question!

Rather than (immediately) philosophize, let's examine it empirically. If we look out at the Astrologers that come to the Forum and post and if we look at the literature in the field, it seems that the answer must surely be INFINITY.

Thinking about it, perhaps that is what Astrologers seem to WANT. What they NEED is perhaps a different question altogether.

My only real fear in this approach to the question is that I think of SuperCuts (a hair "salon" in the States). I don't know if it is still this way (I live in Germany for years now), but when one got a haircut, the time was noted and the "manager" would occasionally come back and let the "stylist" know how much time was LEFT. In short, your haircut wasn't finished by quality or progress of the haircut, it was determined by when your time was up. Since, in Astrology, we are often an ORACLE to the client, we have to do what helps most regardless of the time involved.

Now, in Astrology, we see some astrologers (won't mention any names) that use hundreds of asteroids and look at "the future" with more than a half-dozen specific techniques. On the other hand, we have someone like Noel Tyl, who uses (mostly) transits and solar arcs, with a nod for the progressed Moon. (I have a sneaking suspicion that the correct answer is somewhere BETWEEN those two extremes, BUT LEANING TOWARDS THE LATTER, not in particular technique, but in NUMBER.)

From a "service" oriented perspective, we only need the techniques that are NECESSARY to give the service that the client wants. Part of the problem is that we are all fighting against negative P.R. (and let's say general misunderstanding of what Astrology IS). Because of this, we have a strong drive to be "righter than right", which can lead us quite easily into chasing every leaf that blows in the wind. (in terms of techniques)

I know that, no matter how satisfied *I* am with a particular technique, there is always the urge to learn more and to examine more possibilities. I think this is healthy as long as we don't get LOST IN THE SEARCH or take too strong of a "hit" in terms of how many people we can ultimately "help".

The bottom line is to use Astrology to IMPROVE THE HUMAN CONDITION. (hope we can agree on that broad definition) We must be watchful of things that might deter us from that.

Now, Unique_Astrology has mentioned the importance of having an accurate birthtime and though I am hesitant to use the "rectfication" word in recent days on this Forum (there is absolute disagreement from MANY about *HOW* to go about doing this in the best way); still, I feel that Unique_Astrology is entirely correct. There is a question of PRECISION, which is necessitated based on TECHNIQUE. If one only uses transits and solar arcs, a birthtime to the minute is basically enough. (in solar arcs, one minute accuracy is 15' of arc on the Midheaven, or of course, 3 MONTHS time) I won't tangent onto the idea that, in 3 months, so many different things can happen that it stretches reliability to try and "define" a 3 month period, when so many varied things can happen in that amount of time. (Generally) if we're talking about Primary Directions, then a birthtime to the minute is an unfinished rectification...it's not usable. (This is because a SLIGHT change in birthtime leads to a LARGE change in timing) [Now, of course, the HINT is in that last sentence about HOW we should go about rectifying, but I'll leave that as a pointing finger, rather than a "do it this way!" comment.]

Unique_Astrology HAS presented a method and I personally have not looked into it yet, so I can't critique or even "review" it. It does appear to be math-heavy, which I think would likely scare away MANY in these days of computerized, instant presentation of information.

The problem, or one way to be sure and get side-tracked in obtaining a super-accurate birthtime is to allow the subjective mind of the astrologer too large a sway in the process. The best way, ie. the objective way, would be to have a system of NEVER-CHANGING, DEFINED symbolism. One has to use tight orbs, so that the time period is brief enough that it has MEANING when an event occurs in that time. (This previous point is IMPORTANT. On another website, a psychologically oriented one, again, won't mention any names, there is an astrologer putting forth rectifications and basing them often on Solar Arc activity with a WHOLE DEGREE range of applicability, ie. one year. It should be obvious that any of us can find SOMETHING that occurs in our life relative to the astrological aspect, IF WE ARE ALLOWED A WHOLE YEAR OF TIME IN WHICH TO SEARCH. If a certain solar arc occured in July 2005, then we are talking about BASICALLY THE WHOLE OF 2005 as the period of its applicability according to that particular astrologer's approach. So, in that year, if the solar arc related to a possible accident, then do I see my fender bender in May or my fall down the stairs in August or both? If the solar arc seems to suggest a death in the family, are we thinking of Uncle John dying in March or Aunt Betty dying in November, or both? What about the years where I had two accidents and NO attending solar arcs to "blame" it on? It should be obvious that the larger time period that we "envelope" into having relevance, the LESS precise we CAN be.)

Now, Unique_Astrology has mentioned a method where rectification can be done based on one event. There was recently a rectification challenge on this Forum using three events. I don't remember Unique's attempt or IF he participated, but I know that Matt was the closest to the correct answer, whatever the method. However, because Unique normally presents sound reasoning (to my eyes), I am forced to work through the math, which (though I was a math major in college!) I have been hoping to avoid. The claim was thrown on the table and, in the interest of at least LOOKING at anything that MIGHT be useful, I can't avoid it just because it's momentarily unpleasant. Wink

There is so much more to say on this topic...and I look forward to reading everyone's take on this topic.

How many Methods do I need? After 20 years, it still seems like the answer must surely be "ONE MORE." The last two techniques that I have found useful and often PROFOUND are Topocentric Primary Directions and PSSR's. I always feel that I am "getting there", but that it is like the mathematical paradox, where I continually HALVE the distance to the "finish line" each time, but thusly never actually reach the finish line. As my wife would corroborate, I am definitely a "work in progress" and my Astrology is the same... Smile

Central Scrutinizer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I come from a software development background (though I started on astrology long before that). I think there's a very good analogy between astrology and the kinds of modelling methods used in many disciplines including software development.
This is also an interesting way of approaching astrology. It reminds me of models used for weatherforecasting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
unique_astrology



Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 79

Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralScrutinizer wrote:

Now, Unique_Astrology has mentioned a method where rectification can be done based on one event. There was recently a rectification challenge on this Forum using three events. I don't remember Unique's attempt or IF he participated, ...
Central Scrutinizer


I did not post regarding the exercise you mention during the time it was active. After reading Isaac's attempt wherein he used the PSSR technique I decided to look at it as my technique uses the lunar return generated from the nearest precession corrected solar or demi-solar return Moon as its primary tool.

I started using 3 AM and the midpoint location between the 2 cities given for location. I thought that I had found the answer on my third attempt but when the secondary progressed Jupiter came up on the ascendant of the progressed lunar return I decided that I had to find another time. When looking at the demi-anlunar and transit biwheel to progress the lunar return I had noticed that Mars had stationed between the commencement of the lunar return and the time given for the accident and thought that Mars was appropriate for an accident and its station on an angle would be appropriate. First attempt to put that Mars on an angle was to back up 1 hour from the time I had used to get Pluto on an angle. This change yielded a birth time of 1:38 AM but left Mars 0°26' above the descendant. A change of 2 minutes would give better results. I made that change to 1:40 AM for the birth time and wound up with Mars 0°01' minute above the descendant. Finished in just over 1/2 hour and 5 attempts.

I do not post often here as I get little or no response when I do. I did not post about my work on the challenge. When the answer was posted I was proud of the fact that my technique had produced the closest time to the answer and wrote a post giving the details and expressing my pride in the success of the technique. It was my post that Yuzuru deleted and derided. His action and the tone of his PM's to me prompted my previous post in this thread. A post I feel was way overdue given the manner in which the technique has been ignored by a supposedly open minded group such as this.

The math involved is subtraction, addition, and simple interpolation.

Bob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Olivia



Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 866

Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think everybody's a little touchy on rectification just now, Bob.

I've done two mystery charts. The first one I got, but that launched a controversy because I used fixed stars in conjunction to angles - and people started to debate whether conjunction with fixed stars was traditional, or only paran was traditional, and whether conjunction even worked (as far as I can tell it does, and not just for me, and not just from that one mystery chart).

That went on for pages. I went elsewhere. It was probably a good discussion, but I don't like being a source of controversy. I'd got a few other things from the chart using fixed stars as well that turned out to be true, but it was beyond the scope of the game, and I never mentioned them, either during the game or after because that would just have created more controversy - but it was nice to know what I was doing worked, whether it fit someone's theory or not. Most people here are way smarter than I'll ever be, so it's always a little intimidating to post.

The second mystery chart, the person who posted it gave the pages in Lilly that were relevant. I'm not a native English speaker, and Lilly's writing style has always been somewhat confusing to me. He's an important source, but not usually the first I go to when I'm doing horary - and yes, I do horary professionally. But this wasn't professional, it was just a game, so I thought it might be fun to try to solve it by using Lilly only. At the time, I didn't think it would hurt. The person who posted the chart already knew the outcome, it wasn't like it was for a client or anything.

Lilly's really important on account of his worked chart examples, I know that, and I've read his works straight through three times as well as using them for reference - they just aren't usually my first reference.

I missed the answer by a mile. After it was over, I mentioned what I'd done, and if I'd used other methods, I thought I would've done better - so obviously I still need to work on Lilly a lot. That got me tagged for trolling and 'arrogance of sources'. It really wasn't trolling or arrogance - it was comprehensibility!

Now I just play along by myself and never post in mystery chart threads - either during the games or after. You can still learn doing things that way, and nobody will accuse you of trolling.

If you do want to play, simply post during a game, never after, whether you get it right or wrong. At least I think that's how it works.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4179
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have not had the time to reply to Eddy's recent post so my apologies if this post is picking up the trail quite cold here.


Quote:
I doubt if a child choses the moment of birth. Natural elements or on the other side Caesarean sections which depend on the decision of doctors etc. are stronger I think. Perhaps there is also something like 'divine intervention' which can be seen as the 'free will' of a 'supreme being'.


Hi Eddy,

Didn't Gaughelin's research find the so called 'Mars effect' disappeared with induced births? The only book I have come across that tried to pull together Gaughelin's research with astrology was The Message of Astrology by the British astrologer Peter Roberts. Roberts had studied Harmonics with John Addey and his theory is an interesting combination of harmonic theory, Gaughelin's research and reincarnation. Worth checking out if you hold to a more naturalistic outlook.

Quote:
Concerning horary, since I don't know much about it I'm not in the position to judge it. It seems to be the achilles heel of a pure natural view of astrology.


At least we can agree about that. Wink

Quote:
From a technical point of view the main difference with say Tarot is that if for example in two different rooms next to eachother a horary is done at the same time for the same question the chart will look the same and the answer would resemble if the same techniques are used (e.g. Lilly's). The chance that the Tarot cards laid down would be the same however would be extremely small.


Thats a good point. I accept astrology has some unique characteristics that distinguish it from other systems. That doesn't mean it cannot be viewed as oracular.

Quote:
However there it may be possible to find a link between all these by which all stem from a natural source.


Good luck on that. I hope you are a patient man.....

Quote:
Why would doubt be a problem. I think some doubt makes a person more careful and more willing to research.


I was discussing doubt in the context of a client consultation. It would be quite disastrous to start doubting your approach in that context. By all means lets question our techniques and probe deeper. However, a consultation is not the place to do that in my opinion.

I suspect your thinking more of an astrological researcher. Thats very different.


Quote:
While Kirk is right that much depends on the astrologer and much happens in the interaction between astrologer and the other person, this view could be subject to the often heared criticism that all astrology and divination is a variant of 'cold reading'. There indeed is such a thing as 'cold reading' and I believe this kind of criticism should be rather acknowledged than rejected, because then the astrologer can learn to discern what is really astrology and what is merely a psychological effect.


To a certain degree any empathic human encounter could be accused of this. I am not sure its really as conscious as many sceptics claim.

Quote:
Our culture in which we grew up affects that what we see or experience. For the one dreaming about a snake would mean the devil and for the other the cycle of life.


True. Your point being I assume that astrological symbols are culturally relative? Its the same as being able to speak Italian or Spanish. Its incomprehensible gibberish if you dont understand the basic vocabulary. Astrology has rules and conventions we all have to learn first whatever our explanation of how it works. I therefore dont see astrology like the law of gravity working in all conditions. Without an interpreter of the astrological symbols or language there is no astrology.

Quote:
Moreover studying a chart (whether horary or natal) or the Tarot (or any kind of divination art) seems to bring you in a sort state of mind where intuitively a connection is made with the other person/client. Without this, both arts could simply be performed by machines.


Agreed.

Quote:
The spider hanging on the ceiling sees the room from another perspective than the mouse down in the corner does, however it is the same room.

Gosh Eddy. I wouldn't like to have to clean up around your place! Laughing

Point taken though.

Quote:
Perhaps there is something else we don't know yet and that cannot be explained by newtonian physics. We shouldn't give in too much to scientists' remarks that the gravity of the doctor or midwife is many more times greater than that of Jupiter and also of the Moon. Sure the Moon doesn't 'pull' on us individually but she excerts the gravity for certain on the sea. With the tides the sea goes up and down and within it all fish and other creatures. I think this also happens with humans. I'd say 'something' around us over the whole Earth is somewhat affected by the planets and we are within it. The moment of birth being the most sensible moment for us.


Even if it could be demonstrated that a small element of the planets influence is in some way causal, as Peter Roberts has speculated, that still leaves the vast majority of astrology beyond any hope of naturalistic explanation. Why should purely symbolic techniques like progressions, primary directions or Solar Returns work for example?


Quote:
The drawback of a pure symbolical view is that one needs to be 'initiated' in it or one needs an astrologer to explain what is happening. However the relation of weather with astrology and the possible effects of astrology on animals and plants indicate that there should be something physically related and couldn't be explained from a pure symbolical view.


We can see such connections or interconnections operating without the need for a causal principle.

It occurs to me that the origins of this discussion stem back to the two giants of early western phiolosophy: Plato and Aristotle. Plato suggested our perception of reality was simply a shadow of the true nature of things contained in the ideal form or 'the good'. This could be conceived of in theistic or monistic terms. The symbols of astrology are therefore just emanations of this pure realm of reality. Many metaphysical schools whether Neo-Platonic, Gnostic, Sufi or Kabbalistic upheld such views and influenced astrologers throughout the generations. I would suggest the first astrologers in the west (excluding Ptolemy) conceived astrology in something like this manner.

Astrological techniques however apparently powerful would all be viewed as imperfect emanations of the good or the eternal unchanging truth. While the heavens plays out its eternal cycles astrology and astrologers exist in the the sub-lunar world where everything is subject to change and imperfection.

We see a Christian equivalent notion to this Platonic view in St Paul's much quoted phrase of seeing 'through A Glass Darkly' in the New Testament in the book of Corinthians.

Its a mistake to think that a symbolic or metaphysical approach to astrology necessarily implies one is seeking to 'psychologise' it in the way modern astrology often does.

Throughout history many astrologers have sought the assistance of intermediary beings which are variously known as Daemons, Angels or Devas. We find this view quite explicit in the astrology of Vettius Valens. The Church father St Augustine, who had probably been exposed to astrology in the Manichean cult, condemned astrology not because it was perceived not to work but because he saw it as putting the astrologer in contact with demonic spirits!

Aristotle represents the other tradition in the west based on empiricism and rationalism. Arguably, our scientific world view today owes much to this. Ptolemy was the astrologer(?) who sought to embody this approach the most. However, if the ideas of Robert Schmidt and Robert Hand are correct Ptolemy was very much the odd one out in his approach to astrology. Robert Schmidt certainly suggests the originators of hellenistic astrology were working from an essentially Neo-Platonist outlook.

Quote:
I prefer the view of Ptolemy of humours etc. I think this view was always there with the medieval astrologers, notwithstanding their symbolic approach
.

Medieval astrologers could effectively have their cake and eat it. They could argue that astrology was both art and science and there was no science to prove them wrong. William Lilly was probably one of the last astrologers that could practice his art without concern for its compatibility with a scientific paradigm. We dont have that luxury today. Hence the Holy Grail of modern astrology has been to obtain scientific acceptance.

Both the naturalistic and symbolic (or metaphysical) explanations for astrology both fail under the test conditions of rigid empiricism. The difference is that the latter view doesn't regard scientific empiricism as the final arbiter of all truth.
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the reply. As I'm in Avignon France now with 30° I haven't been able to join the forum for a while. I believe I read Robert's book in the past or at least a book of his, don't remember the title. There were some interesting ideas in it but I had my doubts about his explanation why the points of highest activity in the cadent houses as discovered by Gauquelin. But still interesting, just like Percy Seymour's book is interesting too.

The natural science of progressions directions is also difficult to explain. I therefore sometimes doubt about them especially because there seems to be a need for many different systems of these. Which isnt the case with transits only differenc"e is whether sidereal/precession corected or tropical. no need for for example reverse Saturn arc transits.

greetings from the Provence
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Benevolentwizard



Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 5
Location: Atlanta

Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greetings:

I am new to this forum and this is my first post here. This thread is also what prompted me to join. I have found this to be a most fascinating discussion. So let me see if I can jump in with a few coherent thoughts.

The original question posed in this thread was “why are there so many different methods and techniques?” The most simple answer I can think of is that every astrologer sees the world and thus the chart from a different perspective. Each of us who share a passion for the astrological arts learned those arts in different ways.

I have been a student of astrology for 35 years and one of the things I learned long ago is that there are different schools of thought in astrology. Each astrologer creates a different “Model” of astrology in their mind. Over the years I have found that my own Model of astrology works pretty well, but I also know many other astrologers who’s model varies from my own and yet they too are very good at reading a chart.

Because we can never know all the factors outside of astrology that contribute to the subject of a chart we can only Model the possibilities from any chart. It’s like when Meteorologists use a variety of Models to predict the course of a storm. Each Model takes into account different factors. Then the Meteorologist will use the range of predictions to make their best guess as to what a storm will do.

The first time this really struck home for me happened years ago when I was doing a chart for a suicide. I did a chart for the moment of death; I ran the transits for the natal chart; I looked at the synastry for the moment of birth and death; I ran a progression and then looked at the transits to that progression. With each technique I found another level of comprehension. And then I sat down with people who knew the individual and asked about the circumstances of the suicide. When I was done it felt to me as if understood what had happened; as if I had peeked into that strange moment when one individual thought life no longer worth living. No single technique could have given me that insight.

I have also come to realize is that different astrologers key into different factors in a chart, filtering what they see through the experience of their own lives. There are things I might see in a chart that they will miss completely and by the same token they will see things I miss. You can take a dozen artists and ask them to paint the same sunset. You will end up with a dozen different perspectives.

It is no different with astrologers. Each of us will filter a chart through or own individual Model and experience and reveal a different perspective. Instead of asking everyone to see the same thing in a chart, are we not better served by the accumulated perspectives of different astrologers?
_________________
God does not play dice with the universe, but she is a formatable poker player
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mattG



Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK

Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Welcome Benevolentwizard - or may we just call you Ben? Smile

Thank you for your thoughts on this

Regards

Matt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Benevolentwizard



Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 5
Location: Atlanta

Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for the Welcome Matt. And calling me Ben is just fine. This is a very interesting forum and will probably take me a while to read through all these back posts
_________________
God does not play dice with the universe, but she is a formatable poker player
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Atlantean



Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 382

Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Benevolentwizard,

Good post!

By the way, welcome to the Forum. Meeting a benevolent wizard is much better than the slightly disenfranchised necromancer that I met yesterday...

Have fun!

TransmaniaconMC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Benevolentwizard



Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 5
Location: Atlanta

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you MC.

This is a fasination and very educational forum and I have only just begun to explore all the interesting threads. I hope I will be able to contribute something along the way.

Ben
_________________
God does not play dice with the universe, but she is a formatable poker player
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 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