31
Thank you Paul. Im glad you dont think I was disrespectful, thats what worried me.

I am passionate about understanding astrology (and life as we know it) and I dont really think anyone is even close but thats my problem!

33
Maybe this would be a good place to pause and reflect, then share, some of our thoughts regarding how we choose the system we use.

I myself see a symbolic part of astrology and also a technical part. It seems that the symbolic part represents an accretion of thought over the past two or three millennia, and it feels like the various symbols have evolved, but done so in a steady direction. This slow honing process, to me, makes the symbolic component of astrology very powerful. And it seems that, at least relative to the technical aspects of the field, it is a lot less controversial. I haven?t seen too many posts with diametrically opposed views of, say, the symbolic meaning of Jupiter.

Astrology?s technical component seems more fraught. Witness the debates on tropical vs. sidereal, or whole sign houses vs. quadrant. It seems that in this realm, things have not slowly evolved in more or less one direction. Different threads of thought have diverged. One could make intricate use of a particular system, only to have newly unearthed documents from the past completely shift things. I?ve seen entire house systems argued based on the translation of one phrase of ancient Greek. To me, this has been a large underlying source of contention among astrologers, at least in this community. And I?m not saying that?s a bad thing. The scholarship done to resolve these issues is impressive, and has shed new light on the symbolic component.

Based on my humble viewpoint, I?ve leaned towards emphasizing the symbolic component of astrology, and am less concrete about the technical components. For example, I take a more vague view of the houses, with internal issues near the IC, external dealings near the MC. This is because very erudite people have told me my sun is in the 9th ? and also the 10th ? house. But that?s just me.

I?m curious to hear the thought processes of other people in the systems they choose. One thing is, astrology is a beautiful window into the human mind, and the collective unconscious of our culture. One can learn so much about humans reading the various arguments and points of agreement ? perhaps moreso the former. As a physician, I can feel some of the thought processes and modes of thought of my profession strongly present in astrology. This is perhaps from the time, long ago, before the two fields diverged. And it?s great. I?ve even applied some of the ways people have communicated in these forums to how I speak to my patients.

To Rich, who started this thread: welcome, you?re in for a treat!

34
Interesting points, Phil!

It is hopefully obvious that Astrology has, in many respects, become quite bloated with fairy tale measurements and creative imagination.

Still, I am of the opinion that many of the points that you raised DO have a unique and correct answer.

I find it impossible to believe that there isn't ONE house system which is actually the physical basis for reality. Some of the others are likely close enough that they are right (in terms of delineation) much of the time. It makes no sense to me that "Bob's" chart works with Placidus, yet "Dave's" chart works best by Koch. And here we have "Merry" and her chart works best with Porphyry. I must admit that, hearing these types of comments, the immediate reaction is... flaky birth data or flaky astrological perception is responsible.

To me, the thing that seems to be begging to be done is to take very accurately timed charts and then look at a ton of events and see where those house cusps SHOULD be. Oh wait, that's been done. That's how we got Topocentric. :)

Peace

James
Last edited by Atlantean on Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

35
hi and welcome rich!

i would like to emphasize a similar viewpoint to phils. i see astrology as much and more of an art then a science.. the art is in the interpretive process and how astrologers use different methods to arrive at the conclusions they do on a chart. there are many techniques, some more popular then others and much cross over going on in astrology where a person has to weigh these factors to come to a conclusion on the chart.. the weighing systems that one can consider in the article deb translated from johannes schoener's table of dgnity scores for example, are one clear example of an astrologer doing exactly this.. someone else might weigh the factors differently or have a different house system to arrive at a conclusion that would be different then another astrologer...

i often associate astrology with music. no 2 musicians will play a song exactly the same way, not would they if they allow a more personal and individual touch to enter into what it is they are doing..

thinking there is only one way to do something (right or wrong with no grey area) seems counterproductive when it comes to astrology or music. i personally don't think of astrology in this context, but more art and less science..