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:
Book III of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Notes on Dorotheus III: the haylāj, Kadhkhudāh, and terms of life
by Deborah Houlding
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

Skyscript Astrology Forum

the standard astrological chart
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 210
Location: San JosÚ, Costa Rica

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ed F wrote:
Juan wrote:
... The widespread idea that Astrology's basic principle is the direct correspondence between what happens on earth or in our lives and what happens in the sky is therefore contradicted by the practice of Natal Astrology, and therefore cannot be used to explain or describe the theoretical basis of Astrology.

That's right. All it describes is the fundamental interpretive rule (in the mathematical sense) of the system.
- Ed


I'm not sure exactly what you meant here. Could you explain a little more?

If I were to summarize the whole concept I would put it like this:

As we have seen, astrologers work with abstract mathematical coordinates that are independent of real events happening in the sky at the time to which these coordinates refer (e.g., transits, progressions, directions, even the radix chart itself), and these coordinates are plotted against cultural classification systems (signs, houses, dignities, aspects...) that have been geometrically modeled after celestial motions but which do not exist in nature.

There is nothing wrong with any of this, it is simply what astrologers do and have been doing for centuries. As was expressed by RenÚ: "We just have to be aware of what we are doing and why."

This awareness, however, is seldom found among astrologers, and nowhere is this more evident than in the idea maintained by many that they are dealing with actual celestial events. A simple examination of the way astrologers use their charts, as I have tried to do here, shows that this is a fallacy.

An "astrological factor" or event is defined by discrete celestial coordinates that are assigned qualities and meanings through an elaborate system of cultural categories established by convention (signs, houses, dignities, aspects...); with these categories and some simple imaginative canonical temporal manipulations (e.g. transits), astrologers build a model that is used to establish or derive meaning about any concrete moment of the past, the present, or the future.

Bill has suggested that the realization of these facts can augment the gap between Science and Astrology, but I think it does the opposite by showing (potentially) that horoscopic Astrology is nothing more than an elaborate model-building mathematical tool based on a culturally idiosyncratic analogical manipulation of heavenly motions, a tool that in the right hands can be very sharp and effective.

(NOTE: I'm putting aside here momentarily the discussion of the problem of scientific testing and "proof".)

Most astrologers will perceive this notion as too radical and will reject it because it deprives Astrology of its mystery, of the awe-inspiring experience of the heavens... even though what they really do has almost nothing to do with it.

This rejection is mostly for ideological reasons, not because what I am describing is inaccurate or flawed. It may very well be flawed or inaccurate, but I want to know where and why, in terms that can be friendly and constructively discussed.

Juan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ed F



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

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My point was really simple. In mathematics, which is a strictly formal activity, when one would like to use them, one assigns its symbols to some phenomena, then draws conclusions about the phenomena based on the formal mathematical relationships.

In astrology we do something similar. The act of assigning a time and place to a phenomena (a person etc) is the most common act of interpretation in the mathematical sense that is used in astrology. It sets the mapping(s) of our charts (models) to what we want to study in the real world.

That's why I called it the primary interpretive rule, often stated "as above, so below" (and vice-versa).

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



Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
Location: Spain

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Juan wrote:
It is so relevant that your dogmatic assertion that the birth chart mirrors the physical reality of the sky has been shown to be false.


Oh no, I am not dogmatic at all Laughing

I never said that birth charts reflects the physical sky, but "the sky" with all its astrological factors that are of interest in astrology.

Astrology is not interested in measure physically the sky, this is the business of astronomers instead, Do you see how confused and crazy you are?

anyway this is becoming a discussion in circle, so I leave the circle for you, what I had to say is already said, and said enough.

you can continue confusing everything, maybe someday you achieve to have some few disciples following you.

Bye bye

Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 210
Location: San JosÚ, Costa Rica

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ed F wrote:
In mathematics, which is a strictly formal activity, when one would like to use them, one assigns its symbols to some phenomena, then draws conclusions about the phenomena based on the formal mathematical relationships.
In astrology we do something similar. The act of assigning a time and place to a phenomena (a person etc) is the most common act of interpretation in the mathematical sense that is used in astrology. It sets the mapping(s) of our charts (models) to what we want to study in the real world.- Ed


Thanks, Ed. Looks very clear now.

The first step of horoscopic astrology is this assignment of a chart to a specific phenomenon. An astrological chart is a frozen moment of time, an instantaneous snapshot, while phenomena are happening in time, they are flowing, developing, becoming, so astrologers have to "cherry pick" one instant of time in the life of the phenomenon, they have to decide *when* to draw the chart, what M. E. Jones called in his book on Horary "charting the pertinent moment".

Here Horary and Natal are no different and in both cases the moment is chosen using the metaphor of birth or of "apparition"; the chart is made for the time when the phenomenon we want or need to model is more clearly perceived or recognized to have started, when it appeared or was born.

It is interesting to observe how astrologers take for granted so easily and naturally that the moment to draw the chart should be the moment of birth. This is assumed automatically and mechanically, as a kind of natural necessity. Why is that? Why do we think so strongly that, if we want to model a human life by means of an astrological chart, we should make it for the moment of birth? Why do we see a birth chart and say "I got you!"?

This question may sound silly, specially to those who think of Astrology in terms of influences, but it contains the key to why and how (in this case: natal) Astrology works.

The funny thing is that it is not that difficult to answer, all we have to do is look at the moment of birth and discern or separate its formal or structural characteristics in comparison to other moments in life. What does the moment of birth have that other moments in life don't? Are there other moments in life that have characteristics similar to those of the moment of birth? Why do we choose the moment of birth among other possible moments?

Since Astrology (Horoscopics) has nothing to do with cause and effect, precedence in time or linearity, being the first in temporal sequence, is not necessary, what is required is that the model be "isomorphic", that it has morphological symmetry with the phenomenon it is charting.

From a perspective of Astrology based on isomorphism (analogic or "parabolic"thinking), the temporal link between phenomena has nothing to do with the compulsion of cause and effect but with morphic concordance (symmetry) and harmonic or mathematical resonance. In this light the astrological principle behind techniques such as Davison relationship charts, converse transits, Uranian Astrology, and the empirical effectiveness of death charts as well as of the "wrong chart" (as Deborah pointed out), can be easily explained.

The principle behind converse transits also makes a lot of sense: to model time in both (opposite) directions before and after the moment of birth, and likewise to model or chart the phenomenon not from the moment of birth alone but also from the moment of death, and like the princinciple behind Davison relationship charts, from the middle point in time between birth and death.

Juan
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
Page 2 of 2

 
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