Damaged thread: A complex question on dignity

1
I'm sorry to say that the thread "A complex question on dignity and morality" has been accidentally deleted from the database. I noticed that there were two copies Mark's latest post to this thread so I attempted to delete the second copy and at that moment my internet connection crashed. When I returned to the forum the thread was damaged and couldn't be retrieved. All I have is a copy of Mark's latest post, which I kept in case something went twrong during the deletion process. I'm very sorry to lose the text of the earlier posters.

Deb

--------- Mark's latest post:

Margherita wrote:
I never told this, just I think it's a very rare condition, because it's very difficult to free ourselves from - how you want to call- fate, Daimon or education, or being conditioned by the rest of society, or by others' expectations.
How many people arrived to this? Very few.

In fact in Catholic religion are called Saints. How many Francis of Assisi do you know? Me none, because it's very easy to say yes to what everybody ask from you.
The notion of Saints seems to rely on the Christian concept of grace from God. I dont personally believe in a creator God so I cannot relate to that term. However, In Buddhism there is the concept of awakened beings that have overcome all suffering.

During my twenties I spent a considerable amount of time with Monks and Nuns that were in spiritual terms on a quite different level from the vast majority of people. In particular five people stand out. I would accept though that however, one looks at it such people are quite rare in our society. However, in Buddhism there is a notion that by our own efforts we can become more spiritually conscious and awake. I accept your point that the majority of us are caught up in various hinderances that bind us whether this is seen as personally negative habits or cultural conditioning. Like the Gnostics I take the view that an awakened person is beyond the scope of horoscopic astrology. That is because such people are seen to transcend even notions of good and evil. From the ultimate level of truth (In Buddhism) while good actions are praiseworthy they still attach a person to the cycle of rebirth.

What about the mass of humanity then like ourselves? Because I believe in rebirth I see the natal horoscope as a limited tool. It may well describe the fate (karma) a person brings into this world at birth. However, by good or bad action a person can change how it unfolds throughout their life. Having said that I think some things in our fate are quite firmly established at birth and hard to alter while others are more flexible.

PFN wrote:
Although my answer may have seem based on relativism, and to a certain degree it is, I myself am not in favor of a relative form of seeing the world. The very core of astrology, into which we predict the future, has a stance where we differentiate planets as malefics and benefics, which is a kind of absolute. Quite on the contrary as one would think, I do believe in fate, and I do not believe that one can change their own fate (free will does exist imo, but shaping fate and fate limiting it). Meaning, I do not believe that one can have complete access to their fate, thus not everything can be seen on a astrological chart (or through any other divination form) cause to see everything would be perfection, and perfection belongs to the realm of God alone. It's our ignorance that grants us the liberty to make choices.
Interesting perspective. Most philosophers usually describe the view of immutable moral laws as 'Realism' while those suggesting morality is situational and relative as 'Anti-Realism'. You seem to support a morality which is situational. However, you are clearly not a materialist as you cite a belief in God. So your metaphysics seem monotheistic. That position doesn't sound compatable with conventional Christianity or Islam as these posit unchanging moral laws sourced from scripture. Your position does remind me of Plato though in the Republic (or at least a variation on it) as you express the divine as the ultimate good or perfection while any attempt to apply this on the sub-lunar realm is subject to corruption. Quite consistent for a Hellenistic astrologer!


Further reading?

I imagine I have thoroughly irritated some of you who just want to get stuck into some charts! I am aware I have taken the thread quite far from basic astrology. For those interested though I just wanted to recommend some excellent books that discuss moral philosophy or ethics in more detail. These cover the views on morality or ethics throughout history. I think some of these books are really worth studying. Bear in mind the astrologers you reading are likely to have been influenced by one or other of these philosophical approaches to morality and metaphysics. In my opinion we shouldn't just take statements in astrological texts at face value.

The Puzzle of Ethics-Peter Vardy
(Possibly the best overall guide to the subject and very reasonably priced!)

Philosophy Made Simple -A. STROLL
(A really lucid book with a separate chapter on classical , Christian and later western theories on ethics. It manages to express abstruse ideas really clearly.)

Classical Thought-Terence Irwin
( an excellent discussion of all the classical approaches to philosophy including ethics: Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Epicureans, and Cynicism. He also discusses Christian thought in the classical period (esp St Augustine)

Classical Ethics, East and West-Robert B. Zeuschner
Unlike most books this considers eastern approaches to ethics in particular Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism. Its a bit pricey though. Haven't read it yet.

An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values and Issues (Introduction to Religion) -Peter Harvey
(Buddhist ethics are based on a very different paradigm from Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics. This book is outstanding. Peter Harvey's other book: An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices is also highly recommended.

Ethics and the History of Indian Philosophy -Shyam Ranganathan
( I haven't read this book. However it seems very important in challenging the idea that the Ancient Greeks and Romans and later westerners were the only significant sources discuussing ethics. Unfortunately quite expensive.).

I am sure there are some good books on Christian and Islamic ethics too but I dont know enough about these to recommend any specific books.

Mark
_________________
If you never change your mind, why have one?
Edward de Bono

Re: Damaged thread: A complex question on dignity

2
Deb wrote:I'm sorry to say that the thread "A complex question on dignity and morality" has been accidentally deleted from the database.


Thanks you have saved at least this, I was writing my reply to Mark---which is this- I was able to save it:


Mark wrote: The notion of Saints seems to rely on the Christian concept of grace from God.
I'm not sure this is Catholic faith, to me it sounds more like Reform.
Catholic religion is the religion of the works, in fact this is the reason why Communism merged so easily with Catholic faith in Italy.

Even now the Governor of Puglia, Nicky Vendola, can say he was grown up with the icons of Nikita Krushev and Padre Pio.
Because Padre Pio built hospitals, not waited for Grace.
I imagine I have thoroughly irritated some of you who just want to get stuck into some charts! I am aware I have taken the thread quite far from basic astrology.
I don't believe this chapter is so basic, to be honest, because it's one of the most important points of astrology texts and requires a knowledge of all the main concepts of astrology, just because it tries to inquire inside the mysteries of the human soul.

I'm planning to publish something in a couple of months, as soon we (it's not just my work) will publish in Italian, I will translate in English.
I am sure there are some good books on Christian and Islamic ethics too but I dont know enough about these to recommend any specific books.
Let us ask to John Frawley :)

margherita
Last edited by margherita on Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

3
I'm sorry to say that the thread "A complex question on dignity and morality" has been accidentally deleted from the database. I noticed that there were two copies Mark's latest post to this thread so I attempted to delete the second copy and at that moment my internet connection crashed. When I returned to the forum the thread was damaged and couldn't be retrieved. All I have is a copy of Mark's latest post, which I kept in case something went twrong during the deletion process. I'm very sorry to lose the text of the earlier posters.

Deb
Oh well I guess we have to accept such imperfection in the sub-lunar realm! :D I was having difficulty posting my comment hence it must have gone in twice. I noticed the thread had gone but thought you might be moving it to the Philosophy and Science thread. Yes its a shame to lose all those thoughtful posts. :( I doubt I have the time or energy to get into all that again soon. Still I have found it a very useful thread in helping me clarify my own views (to myself) on where I stand on the philosophy of astrology.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

4
Hello Margherita,
I'm not sure this is Catholic faith, to me it sounds more like Reform.
Catholic religion is the religion of the works, in fact this is the reason why Communism merged so easily with Catholic faith in Italy.
That seems a bit of an oversimplification to me. To say Christianity is just about good works takes us back to the heresy of Pelagius (5th-6th century CE) who was eventually declared by the Church to not hold the correct teaching that the Church Father's and Apostles had held up to that point. In all Christian traditions man cannot save himself by the merits of his own work. It is a gift of God ie grace.There has always been discussion in Christianity on the balance between faith (grace) and works. Its not just a product of the Reformation thought. Its true though that Protestantism often puts the focus exclusively on grace. The Protestant doctrine of 'Sola fide' justification by faith alone sums this up. So if you are comparing Roman Catholicism to Protestantism the former focuses on works to a far greater extent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide# ... e_doctrine

Regarding the Roman Catholic view we have comments criticising exclusive reliance on grace in the Council of Trent:
The Council of Trent on Justification (Canon 12) states: ?If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy [grace], which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence [faith] alone that justifies us, let him be anathema [cursed]?.
On the other hand....

Section 1996 of the Catechism says:

Code: Select all

Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. (Jn 4:14; 7:38-39.)
Sections 161-162 the Catechism says:
(161) "Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation ...therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification...(162) Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man...
The Catechism also talks about response to faith, (sections 161-162 and 1997-2000) which is to go out into the world and do as Jesus would have us do. Which is what we call Charity. So I dont agree that one can say Roman Catholicism just exclusively focuses on good works as you seem to suggest. Both grace and good works are mentioned. Moreover 'works' dont need to conform to social action. St. Th?r?se of Lisieux became a Saint as a contemplative in total obscurity, whereas Mother Teresa of Calcutta became a saint accompanied by international fame and very public works. Both attained Sainthood while alive, but with different works.

I have read that the Eastern Orthodox tradition takes a similar line to Roman Catholicism. However, as in so many Church teachings the Eastern Orthodox emphasis seems very different from Roman Catholicism.
Sainthood in the Orthodox Church does not necessarily reflect a moral model, but the communion with God: there are countless examples of people who lived in great sin and became saints by humility and repentance, such as Mary of Egypt, Moses the Ethiopian, and of course Dysmas, the repentant thief who was crucified. Therefore, a more complete definition of what a saint is, has to do with the way that saints, through their humility and their love of humankind, saved inside them the entire Church, and loved all people. Wikipedia
I'm planning to publish something in a couple of months, as soon we (it's not just my work) will publish in Italian, I will translate in English.
Gosh you do keep busy! Please let us know when its ready. :'

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

5
This question still interests me. I believe the question originally was about whether essential dignity = good or not.

I've observed some charts with huge essential dignities but the people do things which are according to traditional morals and even today's morals... not good.

Perhaps it simply lets them get away with it.

On the other hand I'd be curious to start analysing in terms of accidental debilities, for example conjunctions with evil fixed stars, planets in the 12th, retrograde etc.

Clearly detriment and fall planets are "dishonoured". But then we might also ask whether those planets actually did so much bad anyway. Whether in fact it was simply "accident" in which resposibility is not theirs alone.

Mars in the 12th in Aries for example. A planet which is a traditional malefic, but in dignity. It may be able to do good were it in any other house, yet in the 12th it is in a sad situation, an energetic placement in a state of confinement.

Now, taking this placement, one can say that this planet may be "driven" to actions because of that feeling of fear, or of oppression, even though those intentions were good, the man may be encouraged to do things which hurt others. Yet one can also say that the person has a choice... he may choose to not take any action, but accept that confinement, to accept that accidental misfortune and in not acting... actually do good, by not hurting others.

6
Another example which would demonstrate other circumstances would be Saturn in Detriment in the 10th.

The planet is publicly humiliated or damaged. Yet if this planet has got a great degree of accidental dignity... and makes no hard aspects to other planets... on it's own it ought to not come to harm.

I suppose the question I want to ask really is more on the lines of:

What planet does harm to others? (whether this planet is publicly seen to do it or whether it does it without being discoved.)

The balance is between accidental and essential dignity. The more freedom a man has, the more chances there are to do evil, yet at the same time, the more chances there are to do good...