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:
Godfather of Modernity: The Alan Leo Legacy Vol. One - Early Astrological Journals 1890-1912, compiled by Philip M Graves
Reviewed by Deborah Houlding
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

Astrology and dating

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AstroOliver



Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Posts: 6
Location: Newcastle, UK

Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:40 pm    Post subject: Astrology and dating Reply with quote

(This is an article I had published in Singles, a UK dating magazine, many years ago, of questions each archetypal sign might ask on approaching a relationship ... please note that itís written by a straight man, he/she and her/him may be changed as applicable!)

(ARIES) Do I fancy her? Is there a spark of attraction lit by her spirit, form, voice or style that focuses me singularly, glad to watch myself strut flirtatiously, wanting to display my honest best, to initiate and promote courtship, forgetful of all else during and after the first encounter?

(TAURUS) Does she fancy me? Is there in eye and smile and speech and posture some recognition and appreciation of my qualities, enough to offset practical difficulties of a beginning? Is there real evidence in the nature of my welcome that here is where my love may take root and grow?

(GEMINI) Can we readily discover many things in common? Does the conversation flow or flounder? Is there ease of playful banter or are jokes not understood even when explained? Are thoughts censored in fraught, halting pauses, or does the speaking of one mind activate, enliven, open the other?

(CANCER) Do I feel safe with her and she with me? Are feelings, hurts and tears allowed or do responses to them cause retreat behind a shell or act? Is there humility and care so that occasional bouts of moodiness are accomodated and not reacted to as the whole story?

(LEO) Is she free? Distanced from the last so that this isnít a total rebound? Is she looking for an important relationship with a man, rather than a woman, or wanting time to herself, or favouring one or more light liaisons? Does she have the confidence to face the world with whatever happens between us?

(VIRGO) Are habits compatible? So that smoking, meat-eating or not, mannerisms of speech, irritations or criticisms said or unspoken donít block decent dealing? Is there concern about the health and welfare of the other, without one-sided dumping of problems, of the imposition of standards not freely agreed?

(LIBRA) Is there harmony between us? Experienced in various circumstances Ė a meal, a film, the pub, a walk in the country, meeting friends, relations, work colleagues? And when disagreements occur, is there sufficient will to listen and seek a compromise, rather than argument from extreme, entrenched positions?

(SCORPIO) Is there deep engagement? De revelations of past worsts shock or draw matching truth? Is sex a loving, warming pleasure or do inhibitions or power trips leave either feeling used? Is a sometimes need for privacy respected? Have each worked through proving life crises, to be able to make a commitment?

(SAGITTARIUS) Are our attitudes similarish? Is talking about them inspiring, learning, fun or does discussion of race, gender, politics, religion, money, the environment produce anger or reticence building no-go areas? Is there tolerant desire for growth and change of the relationship and each within it?

(CAPRICORN) Do our lives move in the same or parallel directions? Or are long-term plans or perceived purposes mutually exclusive? Is there room for a joint partnership to evolve or at least an attitude of protective support, content to watch and wait and will the other to greater wisdom and accomplishment?

(AQUARIUS) Can I be myself with her and she with me? Is individuality nurtured, or pressure to conform? Is there acceptance of each as is now, or are exchanges driven by a vision of some future potential? Is each permitted separate friends and interests that donít threaten but rather strengthen the wanting to be together?

(PISCES) Are there confirming clues? Coincidences, reactions from strangers, indications from astrology, a feeling that it was meant to happen? Does romance flourish with flowers and poetry, beyond the myth of Ďlive happily ever afterí to a dedicated knowing that this is something worth working for?
_________________
10th March 1948 1pm Stafford, UK ... best wishes, AstroOlover
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4193
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont mean to appear unfriendly but I dont really understand the relevance of your post. There are many other places on the web that reduce astrology into 12 simple Sun signs. However, this isn't one of them. Skyscript is dedicated to the serious study of astrology and its historical techniques and roots. Perhaps you are on the wrong website? Confused

Mark
_________________
''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
AstroOliver



Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Posts: 6
Location: Newcastle, UK

Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:19 pm    Post subject: Not so trivial ... Reply with quote

Dear Mark,

Iíve been studying astrology since 1975, teaching it in adult education classes for more than 20 years including an accredited course at Newcastle College, and was a founder member and often speaker for Northern Lights astrology group based in the North East.

What my initial 10 week course showed is that astrology can be used as a tool to understand and appreciate any field of study and human life Ė including starting and establishing relationships, which quite the opposite of being trivial form one of the major interests in the lives of most people.

What I found with many astrologers is that they are quick to get into esoteric academic researches which have little relevance for most people, without a deep appreciation of the basics Ė and what is astrology without the Sun signs?

Yours,
Oliver
_________________
10th March 1948 1pm Stafford, UK ... best wishes, AstroOlover
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4193
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Iíve been studying astrology since 1975, teaching it in adult education classes for more than 20 years including an accredited course at Newcastle College, and was a founder member and often speaker for Northern Lights astrology group based in the North East.


Hello Oliver,

I confess I originally thought you might be a spammer based on your post. Your post does rather look that way. However, even accepting your sincerity my issue is not about the amount of time you have studied astrology for or your qualifications but rather the quality of astrology you are offering us for discussion here.

This part of the forum is the Philosophy & Science part. I don't personally see much difference in your original post from what one might expect in a popular magazine like Cosmopolitan. I would apply the same comment to your 'Life Through The Signs ' post on this part of the forum.

What is astrology without Sun signs? An immense amount actually. Check out the wonders of this site if you dont believe me. Thumbs up

Still, we did dumb down a bit lately and have a discussion on one thread on car driving and the signs in the natal section. You might want to frame a question there as its a more popular part of the site.

regards

Mark
_________________
''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
GarryP
Moderator


Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 207
Location: UK

Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Chaps,

Well - I think the way the discussion is developing, it turns out that Oliver's original post has raised a philosophical issue - to do with whether an analysis of attitudes to relationship, based solely on Sun-signs, is a productive application of astrology. And of course that implies a further question of how one might evaluate that.

If anybody wants to pitch in, please go right ahead!

Garry
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4193
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Well - I think the way the discussion is developing, it turns out that Oliver's original post has raised a philosophical issue - to do with whether an analysis of attitudes to relationship, based solely on Sun-signs, is a productive application of astrology. And of course that implies a further question of how one might evaluate that.


Hello Garry,

Actually, its not just an issue of Sun signs confined to relationships but the validity and utility of Sun sign astrology in total. I am aware a number of excellent astrologers do Sun sign columns. Kim Farnell in her book 'Flirting With The Zodiac' argues this kind of populist astrology has existed long before the advent of the newspaper columns.

So are these astrologers prostituting the art to earn a groat or two or does Sun sign astrology have a valuable social role?

I think its a two edged sword. On the one hand it gives astrology a popular recognition it would probably would lack otherwise. On the other hand it leads most intelligent people to think astrology is nonsense. It also leaves us wide open to criticism from sceptics.

Still, my first introduction to astrology was Linda Goodman's Sun Signs book over 30 years ago.....

My disagreemennt with Oliver though is whether we as astrologers really need this kind of discussion about sun sign types not whether it might have utility elsewhere.

Mark
_________________
''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
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1360

Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with Mark. Besides the topic of sun sign astrology (that I also think is beneath the level of dicussion in this forum, IMHO), the main problem is of its lack of significance to the Philosophy and Science sub-forum.

The post is not related to the epistemological problem of sun signs, it is a post about "I do sun signs this way", and this probably would fit in the natal session, for the ones interested in sun signs.

I also think that the post has little or no effort to engage in any kind of real discussion. If you are interested in promoting your work, articles or website you are free to do so in the News session. There you can put a link to your own articles online and members are free to choose if they want to read them or not, instead of republishing your content as a topic.


Best regards
_________________
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
AstroOliver



Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Posts: 6
Location: Newcastle, UK

Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I joined this site, and decided to offer where I felt was most appropriate some of the fruits of my more than 35 years of study. The basic philosophical idea I was coming from is that any subject may be approached using the tool of astrology, which gives 12 segmented approaches - parts of which a person may be more prone to according to their birthchart - together which make a while, the wisdoms of which anybody can access. In other words, as far as I'm concerned, the whole disdain for sun signs is a complete red herring.

The first reply I received, rather than being a welcome, came at me as a personal challenge and insult, and extremely rude (until it was edited). My feeling was - if attack rather than discussion that goes on here, I'd be quite happy for the moderator to remove all my postings and also my membership of the site.

If there's a topic I'm not particularly interested in, I look elsewhere, rather than criticise what is a valid contribution and someone's best effort, which may interest and even inspire other people - as it has done on many of my courses - where far from trivialising astrology, they were drawn to a deeper appreciation by exactly such articles.
_________________
10th March 1948 1pm Stafford, UK ... best wishes, AstroOlover
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4193
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The first reply I received, rather than being a welcome, came at me as a personal challenge and insult, and extremely rude (until it was edited). My feeling was - if attack rather than discussion that goes on here, I'd be quite happy for the moderator to remove all my postings and also my membership of the site.


Hello Oliver,

I am sorry if you were so offended. However, there has been quite a few problems with spammers in the past and I have to state your post looked exactly like that. In particular there was no question in your post but just a statement of what seemed quite basic astrology. As this is the philosophy part of the site that was quite odd looking here.

However, it would be a shame if you decide to leave the site just because of a misunderstanding. My disagreement with you is not a personal attack. Its an opportunity for debate and discussion of your ideas. That is actually what good philosophy is about. I have no doubt you have considerable experience to offer. But bear in mind though that this site has many people with considerable experience and knowledge too. This means our ideas are frequently challenged or tested here. I think if you take the time to check out discussions on this website you will see what I mean. If you are not really interested in this kind of debate you may be happier on the natal part of the forum.

best regards

Mark
_________________
''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
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 447

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello everybody,

I have to concur with MarkC and Yuzuru. The three posts that you (AstroOliver) posted are all abot signs. Though the modern astrologers put a lot of epmhasis on sun signs, the traditional/ancient/hellenistic/medieval astrologers did not (and still do not) assign signs to signify anything. There are references to associating signs to anatomy i.e. anatomy of human and anatomy of earth (countries geographical places and continents). So, it is irrelevent to talk about the philosophy behind the sign assignments that you proposed because a traditional astrologer would not even do that! It is similar to throwing a question of whether God is one or many to an atheist.

HOWEVER, if you wish to discuss this with other modern astrologers, then perhaps you could do this in the natal topics (or here) but do qualify your subject as sun sign discussion or something so that you'll attract astrologers of same interest.

To answer your questions on the philosophy of signs and religion and ages of men - a traditional astrologer (like me) would say that signs do not signify these things (as mentioned above). We do assign religion and ages of men but we assign them to planets (directly as universal signifcators or indirectly as rulers of signs and houses).

Universal significators of ages of men are outlined by Ptolemy in his Seven Ages of Men where he starts with Moon (4 years) and ends with Saturn. The order is the reverse of the Chaldean order (Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury and Moon). The Chaldean order is derived from the hierarchy of the planetary spheres (Which happen to co-incide with the average speeds of the planets). From young to old as in Ages of Men, then we start from the lowest to the highest hierarchy (reverse Chaldean order) You could just type Seven Ages of Men and Ptolemy on the Web to study more on this.

When it comes to religion we take the Chaldean order itself (from Old Religion to the latest). Jupiter represents all religion in general and hence, is not assigned to any particular religion. So we start from Saturn (referring the oldest religions - Jewish and Hindu), then Jupiter (which is not assigned to any particular religion), then Mars (Idol worshippers and anti-religionists), then Sun (Christinaity and Solar religion), Venus (Islam), Mercury (Science as religion) and Moon (I'll let you guess what this is as this would be the last in the ages of men).

The other religions can actually be fit into one of the planets.

You see, a traditional astrologers always assign planets to signify anything (as universal significators) and not the signs. You (and other modern astrologers) might not agree and our arguments woould be an exercise in futility simply because we are not talking the same language!


Last edited by astrojin on Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:10 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dr. farr



Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 276
Location: los angeles, california usa

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And here I come into philosophical and methodological conflict (again) with (what I percieve to be) the contemporarily dominant "planets are nearly everything in astrology" traditionalist outlook: I state (based upon my studies and experiences) that signs are of vast, qualifying and conditioning, importance, as are stars (including the starry constellations) as well as the meaningful points of space (or, if you will, points of signs) such as Lots, decans, duodenaries, antiscia, momomoiria, and so on. Certainly I am not talking about "sun sign" astrology here, but something much deeper and infinitely more complex: the influences of the quality of the pleroma of space (ie, "signs"), their ramifications upon "things in space" (stars, constellations, planets), and the inter-relationship of space and "things in space" which time (which latter I consider to be-along with space-a fundamental objective reality)

(just call me "Space cadet Farr"!)

Won't debate or argue these issues here because I believe everyone who has seriously studied and applied the art of macrocosmic analysis ("astrology") will develop their own informed outlook and opinion, and I have no desire to challenge or contend with these different outlooks, or to justify my own, or to attempt to change anyone's mind. Won't try to show that "I'm right" and that "you're wrong"-just wanted to express my point of view in this post and share it with those few others with whom it might resonate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3919
Location: England

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If there's a topic I'm not particularly interested in, I look elsewhere, rather than criticise what is a valid contribution and someone's best effort, which may interest and even inspire other people - as it has done on many of my courses - where far from trivialising astrology, they were drawn to a deeper appreciation by exactly such articles.


Hi Oliver,
I'm sorry you didn't get an open-armed welcome with your first posts. What you say above is good advice. On the other hand, in this particular area of the forum there's a lot of philosophical discussion going on. We like to have strong (and often challenging) debates here and find ways to get them started.

I hope you do find us appreciative of your experience; it's always good to have new opinions and new voices in the forum. It seemed to me that the best solution was to move one of your other posts to the natal section, where astrologers are more likely to want to read that sort of material, or not, for what it is - and not for the philosophical principles it raises.

And, welcome to the forum Smile

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



Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Posts: 6
Location: Newcastle, UK

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Deb.

To the administrator - please feel free to move my writings to wherever you feel they best fit.
_________________
10th March 1948 1pm Stafford, UK ... best wishes, AstroOlover
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since I don't use signs (or any (sub)division of the zodiac circle) at all, I don't use Sun signs either, but I'm reminded of what Kim Farnell once said in an interview.
The interview wrote:
Q: What is your attitude to sun-sign columns?

They are to astrology what first aid is to medicine.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/farnell.html

Perhaps I'm going a bit off topic (since the initial post is about what individuals with a particular Sun sign would think when looking for a partner) but since I only use aspects I would (also) look at aspects between Suns in natal charts of potential love partners.

Now as far I know, in basic Sun sign dating astrology people looking for their match would look at Sun signs of similar element, Aries looking for Leo's/Sagittarians etc. My question is how does the Sun sign/elements-matching deals with the possible fact that A's Sun in 29į59'Aries and B's Sun in 0į01'Leo are in trine aspect by sign but in square aspect by geometry? Would the former be the most essential or the latter?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PallasAthene



Joined: 23 Apr 2009
Posts: 619
Location: Bristol, UK

Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="MarkC"]
Quote:
On the one hand it gives astrology a popular recognition it would probably would lack otherwise. On the other hand it leads most intelligent people to think astrology is nonsense. It also leaves us wide open to criticism from sceptics.


If an intelligent person wants to actually use their intelligence to investigate further then they can. Isn't that how all of us got into astrology? (Unless your great grandparent was as astrologer and it's in the family..) If an "intelligent" person dismisses it without study.. are they intelligent or a bigot?

There are so many layers to this subject and anyone with the inclination can find their own level. We must respect each others points of view, otherwise it's divide and rule for sceptics!

Loving Kim's quote Eddy!
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
Page 1 of 1

 
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