31
Juan wrote:There is --sadly-- a very consistent trend among astrologers to dismiss the methods of validation developed in the social sciences. There is a long, refined tradition there that could help astrologers a lot to define the characteristics of their field, but it is largely ignored.
Hello Juan.

I agree with you, but there are some implications to astrology, regarding the approach taken when one thinks of it as closer to what a social science is. Mainly, it's oracular proposition. So, it becomes complicated to fit it even in the realm of these fields, imho. But I concur that a lot can be learnt from the eviroment. We are actually closer to linguists, philosophers and translators some times, than to astronomers and mathematicians, and that escapes us.
Last edited by PFN on Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Paulo Felipe Noronha

32
PFN wrote:Hello Juan. I agree with you, but there are some implications to astrology, regarding the approach taken when one thinks of it as closer to what a social science is. Mainly, it's oracular proposition. So, it becomes complicated to fit it even in the realm of these fields, imho. But I concur that a lot can be learned from this eviroment.
Paulo,

I personally don't think it is more complicated than religion, beliefs, etc., to which oracles as a cultural practice can be related, so one can find a lot of literature, theories, methodologies for approaching oracles developed by anthropologists, sociologists, etc... and they all can be applied right away to Astrology as a cultural practice.

Why are they so consistently ignored?

If astrology is essentially an oracle when seen in terms of its practice, we see astrology partaking of the characteristics of all oracles, but we would still be in the dark about what makes Astrology different from other oracles.

What makes it different in my opinion is the nature of the tools astrologers use (charts, transits, etc.). My view is that it is these tools, not our pre-conceptions of what astrology is or should be, what defines Astrology as a field. We are "astrologers" because we use these tools. So understanding how the tools are made and how they work is necessary to understand what Astrology is and how it works, and what is NOT Astrology.

From here, it is easy to demonstrate that 90% or more of these tools have nothing to do with natural science, but are social and mathematical constructs used as models through which astrologers analyze and (try to) predict any objective or subjective reality which is represented in the model.

Juan

33
PFN wrote: What they (psychiatrists) do universally accept is it's possible to administer substances in order to try and alter certain behaviors and reactions, and those medicines have enough research on them to prove their use through theory and practice (i.e, electrical impulses, secretions, body temperature, blood pump, all can be altered through drugs, and there is a reason for each of them, that if unknown, makes the substance questionable).
Please inform yourself better:

http://www.cchr.org/#/videos/marketing- ... troduction


Sonia

35
soniah wrote: Please inform yourself better:

http://www.cchr.org/#/videos/marketing- ... troduction

Sonia
So, you mean to use psychiatry as an example of a science that is accepted by society, and that this validates the inclusion of astrology under the label 'scientific', when you yourself do not agree that psychiatry is a functional/proved/workable [natural] science. Very honest of you.

I have no patience for this anymore, any point you might have doubts are covered in Bill's post, it's your call to understand/accept or not. Farewell and have a good life.
Paulo Felipe Noronha

36
No, I don't mean to compare psychiatry with astrology, I was just giving you more information about what you thought that is a "science" (psychiatry).

To me psychiatry is politics, not science. Most medical doctors see psychiatry in the same way as astronomers see astrology, in the case of psychiatry is even worst because they don't have scientific evidence for their "science", however in astrology we have rock-solid scientific evidence of its fundamentals, psychiatry lacks of it.

However they are two completely different disciplines. No interest in comparison here.

I have not doubts, I have everything clear, I have not fear to see the facts. Everybody is strong-opiniated here and each one has their own right to be.

Unfortunately most people who came to astrology they have not idea of what astrology is, and the misinformation that they spread harms serious astrology and the whole understanding of the science by society.

That's why I said that many patience is required for to improve this, hopefully new generations of young students will improve this and challenge the current chaos into the profession and practice of astrology.

That's it.

37
In other words,

I don't see astrology as a part of the occult umbrella but instead as a bright natural science as Einstein considered it even before Gauquelin's rock-solid scientific evidence of its fundamentals.

A modern and precise definition of Astrology is needed in today's world.

To me, about the forty per cent of classical astrological technique can be discarded for modern occidental astrological practice and left it as a part of the rich history of astrology, just in the same way as the practice of bleeding is part of the rich history of medicine.

Everybody involved in astrology should have some basic knowledge of astronomy and physics so that they can stop spreading misinformation about the mechanism of astrology -ie. planetary influences, that even explained metaphorically, it hurts the understanding of astrology.

Basically what is needed is more serious and professional training along with a more realistic and modern way to portray the whole issue by institutions and associations of astrologers world-wide.

I can't say that "I am an astrologer" today in the year 2010 in Europe because I am regarded as a fool or as a witch. This needs to change.

Sonia

38
soniah wrote:I don't see astrology as a part of the occult umbrella but instead as a bright natural science as Einstein considered it even before Gauquelin's rock-solid scientific evidence of its fundamentals. - Sonia
Soniah, what are --in your vision-- these fundamentals of which you think there is such rock-solid scientific evidence?

If you take the time to explain what these fundamentals of astrology as a natural science are, I would like to confront them with what astrologers actually do in practice.

The idea is that for a definition or theory of Astrology to be of practical value, it should account for what astrologers do, or have been doing throughout history.

In other words, instead of assuming that astrology is a natural science, why don't we examine first if what astrologers do is natural science?

You have said that 40% of current astrological practices should be discarded. Should they be discarded because they are not based on natural science or because they don't work? And what if they work even though they are not natural science?

For example: one of the simplest and most used techniques today is transits to a radix chart. The unidimensional logitude position of a planet in the sky at any specific time is plotted against the unidimensional position that another or the same planet had a log time ago in the past at the exact time represented in the radix chart. This frozen chart position is a mathematical abstraction and does not represent anything real or existing in the world of nature.

Furthermore, this abstract frozen point in the past is assumed to be a specific person or aspect in the life of a person. And the so-called "transit" is interpreted by means of an elaborated pre-established set of arbitrary and conventional meanings and rules (house and sign meanings, aspect, planetary symbolism, etc.). All this time, the actual relationship of the real person with the transiting planet in the sky is being utterly ignored, it is never considered.

My question is: should we discard transits too? should we discard the use of charts? If not, in what way do you think the calculation and interpretation of a simple transit to a birth chart can be considered natural science?

Juan

39
In my opinion, astrology is best understood as a celestial mirror, with the movements of the heavens presenting a mythological drama in which we see our lives reflected.

The existent rock-solid scientific evidence that supports this phenomena is perfectly coherent with what astrologers do in their practice, as they are studying and analyzing these astrological correlations.

I don't see where is the contradiction here...

Regarding old techniques... Did bleeding used to work in Medicine? If not, then it means that Medicine it never was a science?

Ok, bye for now,

Sonia

40
soniah wrote:In my opinion, astrology is best understood as a celestial mirror, with the movements of the heavens presenting a mythological drama in which we see our lives reflected.
The existent rock-solid scientific evidence that supports this phenomena is perfectly coherent with what astrologers do in their practice, as they are studying and analyzing these astrological correlations.
I don't see where is the contradiction here...
That's because you are talking of an idea only, an idealized vision. When one examines what astrologers do, it becomes evident that it can't be justified, it is quite incoherent with astrological practice.

You keep mentioning the rock-solid evidence of astrological phenomena. I don't see it in Gauquelin's books. Can you give at least one example? And what has this idea of the celestial mirror and mythological drama in the heavens to do with natural science? Can you explain?

Astrologers only seldom (e.g. some schools of mundane astrology and astrometeorology) work with the actual celestial events and motions, what they do mostly (since the invention of Greek horoscopics) is calculate events in a chart. When astrologers work with charts, they are no longer dealing with "the movements of the heavens", but with the analogically manipulated and physically impossible movements in these charts.

Transits, progressions, and directions do not represent the movement of the heavens, they are a mathematical manipulation of celestial motions by means of analogy and symmetries that violate the laws of physics: neither corresponds to something actually happening in the sky at the moment to which they refer, they can never be "synchronistic" with respect to the world of nature.

The list of examples is long, so I offered a specific example in my last post, that of transits to a birth chart, to show that a transit is not something that is happening in the sky or in nature, and therefore has nothing to do with natural science. More details were explained here:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2711

Regarding old techniques... Did bleeding used to work in Medicine? If not, then it means that Medicine it never was a science? Ok, bye for now, Sonia
I still would like an answer: that 40% of astrological practices has to go because it is not natural science or because it doesn't work? And what if it works and it is not natural science?

Juan
Last edited by Juan on Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

41
soniah wrote:The existent rock-solid scientific evidence that supports this phenomena is perfectly coherent with what astrologers do in their practice, as they are studying and analyzing these astrological correlations. Sonia
I will assume that by "these astrological correlations" you mean --to use your words-- the correlations between the movements of the heavens and our lives. In another post you also talked of synchronicity.

But neither transits, progressions or directions are "movements of the heavens" that are based on synchronicity with nature or in "real time". They are all referred to an artificially frozen moment of time in the past (the chart), so astrologers working with birth charts never study and analyze correlations between actual motions in the heavens and our lives.

In the case of directions and progressions, what is happening in the heavens at one specific point of time in our lives is utterly and completely ignored, and instead we use an artificial symbolic motion of the birth chart that is related to the physics of the heavens only through analogy or symetry, and which breaks the laws of physics.

In the case of transits the actual celestial motions are NEVER referred directly to us as real human beings on earth, but to an abstraction, a chart which does not exist in nature. A transit is not an event that happens or can happen in the sky or in nature, it is an artificial mathematical construct built on the basis on celestial motions but which is not natural itself, it can happen only in the human imagination.

There is no technique or technology known to man today that can "study and analyze" the correlations between celestial motions and our lives directly. What we have is astrological charts which are cultural and mathematical constructs and are used AS IF they were us thanks to a thinking based on analogy or morphological symetry, not on any known scientific principle of natural science.

The only time one can speak of actual synchronicity with nature in astrology is at the time for which a chart has been made. The MOMENT of the birth chart synchronistically mirrors what is happening in the sky when someone is born. But an astrological chart and the moment for which it is made are different concepts.

Astrological charts are highly elaborate and artificial structures made of mathematical and geometrical abstractions, and they are interpreted on the basis of an apriori classification system where each abstract category of the chart has a speficic cultural and conventionally established meaning. These meanings are the result of analogical and purely symbolical association, and the geometrical abstractions or categories to which these meanings are associated cannot be found in nature (e.g., 30-degree zodiacal signs, houses, rulerships, etc.).

Furthermore, the events pictured in the chart (e.g. aspects) happen between coordinate points that only seldom correspond to what can actually be observed in the sky. Even at the moment of birth itself, because the coordinate point represented in the chart is only the longitude while the latitude is ignored, a planet can appear above the horizon when it is actually below, or in exact conjunction with another planet when in the sky they may never come together.

So the 2 assumptions you and many astrologers are making, that astrology deals directly with natural science phenomena and with the direct correlation between what is happening in the sky and our lives, are false, or too complicated to really justify them. They cannot constitue the basis for a theoretical or scientific understanding of Astrology.

Juan

42
Juan wrote:So the 2 assumptions you and many astrologers are making, that astrology deals directly with natural science phenomena and with the direct correlation between what is happening in the sky and our lives, are false, or too complicated to really justify them. They cannot constitue the basis for a theoretical or scientific understanding of Astrology.
In other words Astrology has practically nothing to do with natural science, and astrologers NEVER study the direct correlations between celestial motions and our lives, except generically and marginally when dealing with transits without the use of charts.

What do astrologers do then?

Astrologers make use of celestial motions to build mathematical models of human life. These models are cultural artifacts that consist of geometric and semantic structures not found in the world of natural phenomena, but are characteristic of human thinking and language.

Astrologers study how our lives are correlated to these artificial or "heuristic" pseudo-astronomical models (e.g., the birth chart), but never deal with the actual, literal motions of the heavens except indirectly and only in reference to the moment for which the chart is made.

An astrological chart can represent how the celestial motions interact or relate to us only in a metaphorical way, and it is not meant to represent celestial motions per se, it represents symbolical and cultural entities such as a person, a human life, a business, a question, a country, etc.

So the correlation with which astrologers deal is never with the heavens but with the dense and rich semantic structures of their astrological models, which refer to the heavens --in the case of natal astrology-- only remotely (the time for which the chart was made) and indirectly, in a purely imaginative and metaphorical, physically impossible way.

Juan
Last edited by Juan on Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:17 am, edited 2 times in total.