17
james_m wrote:juan, it puts the emphasis on astrology being more art then science in noticeable ways..
To me Astrology is neither science nor art but a tool or set of tools for the modelling of reality. In this sense I think it has a strong affinity with the social sciences.

Juan

19
james_m wrote:how would you categorize or define "modelling of reality" as you put it?
Essentially, astrologers reduce any human reality to celestial coordinates, according to specific procedural and semantic rules and conventions. Thus, for instance, the discrete abstract coordinate that astrologers call "a planet" is not representing the astronomical planet, rather, the astronomical planet is reduced to an abstract coordinate which is then used to represent something else by means of conventionalized semantic attributions or symbolization.

Astrology cannot map how planetary energies affect us because these energies and their way of operating are not known. We can't make a model of what is unknown. But we can take advantage of the order of the heavens assigning to each astronomical point a specific cultural category, and use the result to model or map what we experience here on earth or inside human consciousness. A birth chart (for example) is not a map of the sky, but a map (model) of a human being.

Juan

21
varuna2 wrote:



Are my assumptions for the basis of your position totally wrong?
Completely wrong. Juan redefines Astrology so you can forget about this:''Astrology is the study of the correlation between celestial objects and earthly events''.

It's an exercise in time wasting , it's essentially using an inkspot to explore societies and your own psychodynamics. Pointless, harmful , disingenuous ....not that dictionary defined astrology can't be accused of the same. See JUAN'S site for clarification where you will, bizarrely, bump into the usual mixture of religion and scientism nobbling against the none of this is real conception.

An analogy is the local priest delievering the sunday sermon whilst of a mindset, very common!, the idea of a Christian god is absurd but the belief in the idea may be helpful in terms of maintaining social order and giving your life a sense of teleology.

What I find quite odd is why 'Skyscript' tolerates this. I'm a hard core sceptic but if all my posts were a variation on 'The seed moment is rubbish , but.........'

22
varuna2 wrote:It seems like you want to classify astrology as a social science, presumably meaning in association with sociology, anthropology, and some views of psychology, as opposed to classifying astrology with biology or physics?
Close. "Has a strong affinity with", not necessarily "is". In those fields the scientific method is a failure because theories cannot achieve the standard of "proof", yet we see the development of disciplined methodologies and controls by means of which knowledge and understanding of the subject-matter is possible. Sadly, these methods are generally ignored by astrologers.
Or do you classify biology and physics or even mathematics as social sciences also? (Not that I am sure what your definition of social science is.)
No. The definition is given by the subject-matter: complex, intangible phenomena associated with human activity and production: social structure, cultural patterns, behavior and motivation, language...
Do you take your position because contemporary scientists currently know almost nothing about the laws of nature? Or is it because of a certain worldview perhaps similar to relativism and subjectivism?
Neither. I'm not sure what you mean by "my position", but I think I am just stating a simple fact: Astrology is used by astrologers to model human experience and human concerns. The belief that Astrology belongs to the field of natural science is constantly being contradicted by astrologers in their practice by the nature of the tools they use and how they use them. This situation is a fruitless theoretical dead end.
... But although biologists do not know what the mechanism is for their science, they still study biology without feeling like they need to apologize for their behavior, nor do they feel the need to become total relativists. For some reason, astrologers are the only people who are supposed to do this, to avoid being accused of superstition and burnt at the stake in the indoctrinational institutions.
Are my assumptions for the basis of your position totally wrong?
Yes.

Juan

23
Nixx wrote:Juan redefines Astrology so you can forget...
It would be more productive if instead of your incohesive rant you focus on explaining why what I have said here is wrong.

Juan

25
Juan wrote:
Nixx wrote:Juan redefines Astrology so you can forget...
It would be more productive if instead of your incohesive rant you focus on explaining why what I have said here is wrong.

Juan
What interests me is why you do this. Is it a projection of self loathing that you once believed you were imprinted by ''cosmic forces'''...only to discover in due course Horoscopy was impossible. You probably wouldn't be first or the last.

Anyway it's up to the Skyscript controllers if they want a non-believer using up space on a religious forum.

26
Nixx wrote:
varuna2 wrote:
Are my assumptions for the basis of your position totally wrong?
Completely wrong. Juan redefines Astrology so you can forget about this:''Astrology is the study of the correlation between celestial objects and earthly events''.

It's an exercise in time wasting , it's essentially using an inkspot to explore societies and your own psychodynamics. Pointless, harmful , disingenuous ....not that dictionary defined astrology can't be accused of the same. See JUAN'S site for clarification where you will, bizarrely, bump into the usual mixture of religion and scientism nobbling against the none of this is real conception.

An analogy is the local priest delievering the sunday sermon whilst of a mindset, very common!, the idea of a Christian god is absurd but the belief in the idea may be helpful in terms of maintaining social order and giving your life a sense of teleology.

What I find quite odd is why 'Skyscript' tolerates this. I'm a hard core sceptic but if all my posts were a variation on 'The seed moment is rubbish , but.........'
(emphasis mine)

Nixx

It is probably better to let Juan explain what Juan's opinion on astrology is, the parts I've highlighted above teeter toward being disrespectful.
As Juan himself points out, it may be better to take his points one by one, if you wish, and demonstrate a superior argument rather than simply lambasting them as harmful and disingenuous.

In regards what Skyscript tolerates, it is not my place (or indeed yours) to suggest what Skyscript should tolerate, but we do know what it does not tolerate:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/templates ... r/read.php


On a broader level, the problem here is that we each come to the discussion of what astrology is or is not with an a priori understanding and philosophy that we work with. This has, to some extent, always been the case.

27
Paul wrote:

On a broader level, the problem here is that we each come to the discussion of what astrology is or is not with an a priori understanding and philosophy that we work with. This has, to some extent, always been the case.
I use the dictionary.

Debo did say some time back she did not want the space/place turned into a Horoscopy is a fallacy, we've all heard these irrelevant/irreverant Juanesque /real world postulates a million times, arena.

Anyway I got to go out and look for carpets, so I'll need to take a short break from my Nick Campionesque role playing here. If you are looking for a good read for Chrissy and have not perused it his 'What do Astrologers believe' is a cracker.

:P