2
The MC is the intersection of the local meridian and the ecliptic. Any point on the celestial sphere is at its highest altitude when it crosses the upper end of the local meridian. For objects close to the ecliptic, this is effectively the MC.

The zenith is the point directly overhead, and is the intersection of the local meridian and prime vertical.

Broad definition?

3
Good afternoon,

It might be too restrictive to try and limit the definition of 'visual astrology' to the interesting techniques, based to a large extent on Babylonian astrology, publicised by the well known astrological authoress Ms Bernadette Brady, MA.

Obviously, if one looks at the sky with ones eyes at night one sees neither tropical nor 'sidereal' signs nor nodes of any kind. One sees fixed stars including nebulae, wandering stars, occasionally a comet, an eclipse, an occultation, aurorea borealis, meteor showers and the like IF the skies are clear and light pollution (a modern plague) not too strong. One can also see the horizons where stars rise and set and the zenith where they culminate (at the Medium Coeli for the wandering stars travelling along the ecliptic).

We come to the first frequently used problematic part of 'visual astrology': constellations of fixed stars. These have demonstrably varied in shape, number, name and meaning even during historic times within the Near East and from one civilisation to another, ex. gr. Chinese to Mayan. If any astrological system coherently claims universality amongst humans, it cannot be based on culturally defined symbols employed only by parts of humanity. For the same reasons, a universal astrology cannot be coherently based on the mythology of one cultural zone.

Klaudios Ptolomaios was obviously aware of these problems when he wrote the Tetrabiblos. Although he used the then current names for constellations, he rigorously sought to avoid basing essential astrological definitions on ex. gr. their shapes and mythologies. He defined the essences of wandering stars (planets) in terms of the Aristotelian elements Fire, Air, Water, Earth and of the fixed stars by their comparative planetary attributes.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

Re: Broad definition?

4
lihin wrote:If any astrological system coherently claims universality amongst humans, it cannot be based on culturally defined symbols employed only by parts of humanity. For the same reasons, a universal astrology cannot be coherently based on the mythology of one cultural zone.
All dominant cultures have always claimed universality. You describe the human cognitive condition, the relativity and limitations of knowledge, or what is known as cultural relativism. This applies to all fields of knowledge including modern science.

Juan
Last edited by Juan on Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Re: Visual astrology

5
We cannot rely too much on B. Brady's use of astronomical terms. She defines the MC as "where the zenith cuts the ecliptic" (correct definition by E. Falis above), and parans are shown and described in reference to the IC/MC axis which she calls "earth angles" (correct is in reference to the upper and lower Meridian). When showing the chart of Leonardo Da Vinci she repatedly says "sunrise" and "rising" but the chart shown is made for a time after sunset and the planets she mentions are setting. She confuses "nadir" with the IC, and the IC with the Lower Meridian.

Juan

6
Juan wrote:
We cannot rely too much on B. Brady's use of astronomical terms. She defines the MC as "where the zenith cuts the ecliptic" (correct definition by E. Falis above), and parans are shown and described in reference to the IC/MC axis which she calls "earth angles" (correct is in reference to the upper and lower Meridian). When showing the chart of Leonardo Da Vinci she repatedly says "sunrise" and "rising" but the chart shown is made for a time after sunset and the planets she mentions are setting. She confuses "nadir" with the IC, and the IC with the Lower Meridian.


Yes even I spotted this imprecision in Brady's Book of Fixed Stars and I am no wizard on astronomy. It rather underlines the fact that Brady didn't actually design Starlight herself.

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

7
Lihin wrote:
If any astrological system coherently claims universality amongst humans, it cannot be based on culturally defined symbols employed only by parts of humanity. For the same reasons, a universal astrology cannot be coherently based on the mythology of one cultural zone.
We cannot even agree a universalist astrology here in the west so how could we attain global consensus? Trying to organise astrologers is like trying to herd cats! :) In my experience astrologers are an incredibly individualistic lot.

And how do you remove all cultural references and still have a meaningful astrology? I suppose this comes back to the fact that you seek to make astrology an empirical science based on Aristotlean principles. I see astrology more as divination. In classical philosophy I take more inspiration from Plato, the Stoics and Hermetic thought. As I see it visual astrology goes back to the very origins of Mesopotamian omen reading of the sky.

A good divination system is universal in its application not its cultural inspiration. For example, the I Ching is purely Chinese in its cultural roots but it has a universal accessibility for those willing to take the time to study it. I have met Americans, Australians and Europeans that use the I ching. I am one of these people and have done so for nearly 35 years. Similarly, I have commmunicated with Asians and Latin Americans who work extremely well with the principles of European renaissance horary astrology.

I suppose if you really want an 'empirical astrology' you do have Michel Gauquelin's Neo-Astrology if that approach interests you. However, for most horoscopic astrologers this comes at a high cost since this 'empiricism' leaves little of what we would generally still recognise as astrology.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

8
Mark wrote:A good divination system is universal in its application not its cultural inspiration...
Personally I prefer the word "oracle" instead of "divination". I think Astrology works for the same reasons that any other oracle (geomancy, cards, i-ching...) works. But we need to know in what way Astrology is different from other oracles, and this is where the use of the "celestial apparatus" comes in and differentiates Atrology from other oracles.

All oracles are essentially mathematical binary modelling devices, so I would like to re-quote Ed Falis from another thread. I had placed this quote in a previous post here but removed it for brevity because I wasn't sure this is the right section of the forum to do it:
I view astrology as a symbolic language akin to mathematics, with assumptions, tokens, frames of reference, rules for consistency of and for interpreting (in the mathematical sense of mapping to phenomena) its elements and relationships, and how to derive conclusions.
In mathematics, and in fields where mathematical models are used to understand and to predict phenomena, there are:
1. Multiple kinds of mathematics that can be applied
2. Multiple modelling methods can be used
3. Rules within each of these to evaluate the consistency and correctness of results within the system.
4. Rules for evaluating the applicability of a model and its usefulness.
I think all of these concerns apply to astrology, and that there are multiple possible systems of astrology that work more or less well for a given subject matter. These systems can include or exclude various astrological tokens.
What most astrological systems lack is clear articulation of the principles, elements and rules, and methods for evaluating effectiveness (3&4).
Juan

9
Juan wrote:
Personally I prefer the word "oracle" instead of "divination"
.

Why? I would be interested in your reason for this preference.

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

10
Mark wrote:Juan wrote:
Personally I prefer the word "oracle" instead of "divination"
.
Why? I would be interested in your reason for this preference.
Mark
To me Astrology is a tool, or a "device", so I could define is it as a "divinatory device". But "oracle" suggests to me a conrete act and context characterized by the utterance of words and the construction of contextual meaning through the protocolary manipulation of the symbolic components of the device.

My preference is probably due to my personal experience as a psychological astrologer: What is it that I do? I am an oracle, I utter meaningful messages or "advice", I bring out the meaning in the form of words, I see the meaning, grasp it, and then find the words that contain it best.

The astrologer "says" or "utters", he or she is "a sayer". The act of doing astrology is ultimately a linguistic act, an utterance that contains the answer the soul of the client is looking for (in both horary and natal).

Probably for the person who practices astrology only for himself or herself, this "utterance" is not a part of it, so "dvinatory art" or something similar may resonate more, but I personally feel the purpose of all astrology (or more accurately: the work of an astrologer) is to find the linguistic answer, the translated message, the utterance of meaning, "the word".

Juan

11
Thanks Juan,

Some insightful comments there. I see Dorian Greenbaum has used the term 'Stochastic art' in one of her articles . This seems to fit rather well with your view of astrology which sees it as a process relying on mathematical principles within a less determinist paradigm.

Modern connotations of 'stochastic' finds it linked to statistics, probability and random values. But the roots of this word show interesting connections
to both the art of aiming, and to divination: a stochastes is a diviner.

The verb from which 'stochastic' comes, stochazomai, means to aim or shoot at, and so implies the art of archery. Stochastic arts in the ancient world included both medicine and rhetoric. Greenbaum has explored the possibility of describing astrology as a stochastic art. She suggests astrology is an art of 'aiming and conjecture', and has looked at evidence of stochastic ways of thinking by ancient astrologers.

I thought this might interest you if you are not already familiar with it.

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

12
Juan wrote: Personally I prefer the word "oracle" instead of "divination".
Coincidentally (is there such a thing...?) over on the New & Books forum, there is a thread "Liz Greene vs Patrick Curry on Astrology as Divination" which links to a response by Patrick Curry to an article by Liz Greene. Patrick Curry talks about a "dialogue with a divinity" as the process of divination, implying that the astrologer has an active role in creating the final revelation. But an oracle is a person through whom the divinity speaks and so takes a much more passive role in the process. Is this really how you see yourself Juan?

Also coincidentally (?) I am reading Geoffrey Cornelius' "Moment of Astrology" and I have just started reading chapter 11 where he talks about the difference between scientific/mathematical symbols and astrological symbols. "What a symbol means is one thing (interpretation); how it comes to mean what it means is quite another (theory)." Cornelius goes on to say that one major difference between science and astrology is that there is a theory behind the symbols in science, but that is not really true for astrology. The meanings of the symbols in astrology is taken on trust or "taken-for-granted" as Cornelius says.

Geoffrey
Last edited by Geoffrey on Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.