31
james_m wrote:curtis,

what planet do these folks live on where they can't come down and speak with ordinary earthlings at skyscript? sorry curtis, but i see it the same way as paul here.. the fact someone is reading the contents of thread and can't comment directly shines a weird light on them doing it thru an intermediary.. you are a secretary for them? it seems very weird either way...
Some people I talk to are in important positions that would include grave consequences for being found out that they are in association with astrologers or for having an interest in astrology. I find your "argumentum ad populum" (something is right because more people agree with it) unconvincing.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

32
From this point on can we make sure that no one publishes remarks that are not their own, unless they are quoting from a source that can be properly attributed, as per forum guideline 6:
It is usually OK to include small quotes or small extracts from books/articles for the purposes of making an argument, but always remember to acknowledge your source, and include page references where appropriate.
- it is an easy matter for anyone to register a forum account under a pseudonym and post comments as an individual whilst retaining the security of anonyminity if they want that. That way, if anyone wants to respond to the remarks they can address them to the person involved and the discussion can develop appropriately.

34
Just as a note in the margin of this discussion, I'd like to point out that, as a historian of religion, I think it highly problematic to identify the Buddha as the founder of Buddhism, or Plato as the founder of Platonism, etc. Establishing the degree to which these and other thinkers (even when we know or assume them to be actual historical persons) built on pre-existing ideas and traditions, and disentangling their own teachings from the versions of their later (sometimes even contemporaneous) followers, often borders on the impossible. Quite often, the most we can honestly say is that someone was an important enough figure in the history of a tradition of ideas to have had his name attached to it. (In the case of Eudoxus and astrology, even that seems not to be the case.)
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

35
Martin Gansten wrote:Just as a note in the margin of this discussion, I'd like to point out that, as a historian of religion, I think it highly problematic to identify the Buddha as the founder of Buddhism, or Plato as the founder of Platonism, etc. Establishing the degree to which these and other thinkers (even when we know or assume them to be actual historical persons) built on pre-existing ideas and traditions, and disentangling their own teachings from the versions of their later (sometimes even contemporaneous) followers, often borders on the impossible. Quite often, the most we can honestly say is that someone was an important enough figure in the history of a tradition of ideas to have had his name attached to it. (In the case of Eudoxus and astrology, even that seems not to be the case.)
This argument doesn't preclude the existence of other ideas and cultures having an influence on astrology of the Hellenistic era. I haven't heard Bob say that "Greek astrology" was developed in a vacuum. In fact, there's strong evidence that many ideas were borrowed from the Babylonian era (as shown by Maria Mateus). I haven't heard anything that Maria Mateus has said about Babylonian astrology that would contradict what I've heard so far of Schmidt's argument. I would submit to you that "Greek astrology" has a peculiar "eidos" or archetype that gives it a unique signature. If you want to deal in the world of "hule" then all labels such as "Greco-Roman astrology" are also problematic in the same way. But isn't it more realistic to realize that it's human nature to incorporate ones own cultural hypostasis as the lens through which one views other philosophies?
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

36
Curtis

It may be easier to try to dismiss everyone who questions Schmidt here as suffering from some kind of logical fallacy in argument - but simply stating people as such doesn't make that statement true. Can we get back to discuss the topic at hand rather than discussing one another? I hope your anonymous source simply registers under any email he/she wishes and via any pseudonym they want.
Martin Gansten wrote:Just as a note in the margin of this discussion, I'd like to point out that, as a historian of religion, I think it highly problematic to identify the Buddha as the founder of Buddhism, or Plato as the founder of Platonism, etc. Establishing the degree to which these and other thinkers (even when we know or assume them to be actual historical persons) built on pre-existing ideas and traditions, and disentangling their own teachings from the versions of their later (sometimes even contemporaneous) followers, often borders on the impossible. Quite often, the most we can honestly say is that someone was an important enough figure in the history of a tradition of ideas to have had his name attached to it. (In the case of Eudoxus and astrology, even that seems not to be the case.)
Thank you for this post Martin, it sums up much more succinctly than my own a problem I have with trying to identify what Schmidt has in mind when he says "founder".
zoidsoft wrote:I would submit to you that "Greek astrology" has a peculiar "eidos" or archetype that gives it a unique signature.
Which is what then, in relation to Eudoxus' influence on astrology? What is it, in specific, that Schmidt is claiming Eudoxus 'founded'? Lots? Houses? The astrological use of the Ascendant? The winds? The blurb states Schmidt recognises that Eudoxus was the first to transcribe the zodiac signs - but what does this tell us about astrology as distinct from astronomy?

This is really what I think is important to understand first.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

37
Paul wrote:Can we get back to discuss the topic at hand rather than discussing one another? I hope your anonymous source simply registers under any email he/she wishes and via any pseudonym they want.
I hope so too, and of course we can get back to the topic at hand. I wasn't the one trying to avoid answering what I think is a valid argument from my anonymous source.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

38
Paul wrote:It may be easier to try to dismiss everyone who questions Schmidt here as suffering from some kind of logical fallacy in argument...
I've had quite a few questions over the years about the validity of Schmidt's arguments. One instance in particular, I had trouble with the legal paradigm he proposed in 2003 using the 4 main essential dignities as "rules of evidence". I pointed out that when you filter the 7 visible planets through that paradigm, that most of the time, there's no testimony left. It's not the only time, but I have no interest in making a career out of criticizing Bob. I've seen many less well thought out hypotheses that haven't gotten nearly as much scrutiny as Schmidt's much more carefully thought out hypotheses have. Even so I understand your skepticism is well warranted. Unfortunately I cannot make those arguments for Bob.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

39
zoidsoft wrote:This argument doesn't preclude the existence of other ideas and cultures having an influence on astrology of the Hellenistic era. [...]
Just to clarify, I wasn't intending to get into the main issue under discussion. (For the record, I'm inclined to be highly sceptical of the Eudoxus hypothesis, but I await Schmidt's arguments.) I just saw someone making an argument from analogy (namely, that 'founding' Greek astrology was like 'founding' a religion), and, as it touched on my professional field, I wanted to point out the problems with that. It's not that I'd fault the analogy; it's just that religions are very far from being the monolithic entities that the writer seemed to suppose, so the analogy doesn't really serve his/her purpose -- rather the reverse.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

40
zoidsoft wrote:
Some people I talk to are in important positions that would include grave consequences for being found out that they are in association with astrologers or for having an interest in astrology.
I can relate to this, Curtis, and that's how I took your anonymous quote.

Telling one's academic colleagues in a science department you're interested in astrology would be tantamount to saying you've come down with leprosy and a bad case of pink eye. They'd fear the entire department would get quarantined.

Which is a pity, given the really fine work in astrology being done by classical studies scholars and historians in the humanities side of the campus. For my money, the philologists are often the ones with enough expertise in ancient languages and their temporal and regional variations to contribute important insights into astrology's origins.

I appreciate your correspondent's point that astrology is more than a set of techniques, but that it includes a kind of philosophy (or cosmology) as well. I would add to these two, the marketplace component of astrology. An oldy but goody is Frederick Cramer's Astrology in Roman Law and Practice, which is very short on technical or philosopher matters, but a goldmine of information on how astrology was actually used in the ancient world. It explains a lot about the kinds of political and personal preoccupations in the public consumption of astrology that show up in the literary sources.

41
zoidsoft wrote: ....
....In fact, there's strong evidence that many ideas were borrowed from the Babylonian era (as shown by Maria Mateus). I haven't heard anything that Maria Mateus has said about Babylonian astrology that would contradict what I've heard so far of Schmidt's argument. I would submit to you that "Greek astrology" has a peculiar "eidos" or archetype that gives it a unique signature. If you want to deal in the world of "hule" then all labels such as "Greco-Roman astrology" are also problematic in the same way. But isn't it more realistic to realize that it's human nature to incorporate ones own cultural hypostasis as the lens through which one views other philosophies?
There has long been tons of evidence that Greek astrology was essentially Mesopotamian in origin. Who invented the zodiac, the ephemeris, calculations of eclipses, signs, the nature of planetary influences, the idea of planetary positions as portents, mundane astrology, and latitude zones?

The Babylonians also developed personal nativities by the late 5th century, although we don't know how they interpreted them.

In ancient Rome, astrologers were often called Chaldeans, or otherwise understood to be foreigners.

What the Babylonians didn't invent were the ascendant, houses, spherical geometry, and a Platonic or Stoic philosophy with which to underpin their work.

My go-to book is Francesca Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Martin, I agree on multiple origins, as per my post above on the problematical nature of the "great man" theory of history.