76
Mjacob wrote:
RodJM wrote:Consider that Intuition can be mixed up with wishful thinking, a grey area indeed.
It is rational to follow the idea that intuition is a form of rational insight. Deduction is a process in which we derive conclusions from intuited premises through valid argument
Matthew Goulding

77
Mjacob wrote:
Then by distinction is logical thinking therefore hopeless? Or is this a non-sequitur?
This is a non sequitur, and an example for what I mean, Matthew.

The art is to find the right mixture of logic and intuition. :idea:

Michael

78
There seems to be general confusion here as to what is meant by "logical" and what the Moon's traits are. Let's begin with synonyms for "logical" from Roget's Thesaurus: clear, rational, coherent, valid, sound, cogent [meaning very clear and easy for the mind to accept and believe] , relevant, pertinent, consistent, analytical, sensible

The antonyms (opposite) of these are: confused, chaotic, illogical, irrational, inconstant. Now if we search ancient texts for those words (Lee Lehman's Book of Rulerships) we find one of those term listed once: Al Biruni lists confused for Saturn. We might discard that since it has no support from other authors either before or after Al Biruni.

Now let's look at lunar traits. One trait listed as an antonym for logical shows up in ancient texts. That word is "inconstant." Gadbury gives that trait to the Moon.

If we come to the modern research of the Gauquelins, we do find support for that single term of inconstant: "inconstant" and "changeable." Other traits the Gauquelins found connected to the Moon are: "illusions (prone to them), imaginative, inexact, confused, dreamer, unmethodical." And one big one for astrologers who prefer to make themselves their own authority, bypassing tradition and research: "Unauthoritarian."

Would you as an astrologer prefer to utilize those traits in reading a birth chart or horary?

So if we're talking about intuition, tradition and modern research don't support that term as belonging to the Moon. We might define intuition as the ability to understand or "tune into" a client because we somehow understand (intuition) where the client is coming from without that client telling us.

There is no conflict at all between true intuition and logic. They would support each other, for the universe operates on strictly logical mathematical principles. However, as human beings we are all prone to faulty intuition which then becomes only imagination. In that case we have stepped into the lunar realm.

Intuition isn't a concept found in ancient texts. It's a modern concept, and most likely belongs to Uranus or Neptune or both. That is exactly where Rex Bill's The Rulership Book places intuition: "Uranus, Neptune, 9th house." So it appears to be a false assumption that intuition as such is a lunar trait. As astrologers I believe we would all like to say we use clear logic in our astrological work combined with a helpful dose of intuition.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

79
First off I do find it hard to imagine that humanity only learnt intuition once someone discovered Uranus. Hallucinogens have been used since time immemorial but according to modern astrology they were only invented since the discovery of Neptune.
It takes a great leap of imagination to believe that a zodiac chart is reality. You need to imagine imaginary lines in the sky dividing arbitrary twelfth divisions and then decide where the house divisions lie except that nobody can. To say that judgements based on these criteria are logical is absurd.
Whether this delusion is caused by the moon or Neptune I do not know.
Matthew Goulding

80
According to the Gauquelins the Moon has some traits that can be helpful in interpersonal relationships and counseling: "affable, friendly, generous, charitable, sociable, tolerant, welcoming..."

For the most part ancient texts didn't give psychological meanings to the Moon, so the Gauquelin work is ground breaking. Check out the Gauquelin books. Good reading! We just need to know which traits go with which planets. That's what makes a good perceptive astrologer.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

81
Therese Hamilton wrote: For the most part ancient texts didn't give psychological meanings to the Moon, so the Gauquelin work is ground breaking. Check out the Gauquelin books. Good reading! We just need to know which traits go with which planets. That's what makes a good perceptive astrologer.
Well said Therese,

Perhaps another thread discussing each members views on "logic" and "intuition" should be instigated?
Libra Sun/ Pisces Moon/ Sagittarius Rising

82
RodJM wrote:
Perhaps another thread discussing each members views on "logic" and "intuition" should be instigated?
Rod, a big problem with modern astrology is that there are too many "views" as such, when we really need to pay attention to accepted definitions. I see that we need to truly understand the planets and other concepts apart from mere opinion.

There seems to be a prevalent view that we can build our own foundation on our own opinions.That's not really the way truth works. In all fields it's first necessary to obtain a firm foundation in basics. Then practice in the field for a number of years. That's where we obtain the right to begin adding our own ideas based on experience.
Last edited by Therese Hamilton on Wed May 07, 2014 5:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

83
Mjacob wrote:
RodJM wrote:Consider that Intuition can be mixed up with wishful thinking, a grey area indeed.
Then by distinction is logical thinking therefore hopeless? Or is this a non-sequitur?
MJ
I didn't mention logical thinking in my statement. The whole concept of Intuition should be taken by the perspective of either psychological or philosophical. If we are to debate this, what side are we taking?
Libra Sun/ Pisces Moon/ Sagittarius Rising

84
Therese Hamilton wrote:RodJM wrote:
Perhaps another thread discussing each members views on "logic" and "intuition" should be instigated?
Rod, a big problem with modern astrology is that there are too may "views" as such, while we really need to pay attention to accepted definitions. I see that we mainly need to REALLY understand the planets and other concepts apart from mere opinion. That's my view, anyway.
Oh yeah, of course, just look at all the practically endless discussions on various forums all over the world on the subject of astrology, in its many guises and forms. Paying attention to accepted definitions would be first step towards hauling it into academia.
Libra Sun/ Pisces Moon/ Sagittarius Rising

85
Therese Hamilton wrote:Martin wrote:
Assuming that several mutually contradictory models can be true, equally and in the same sense, strikes me as a very modern, post-modernist view, rather different from most if not all traditional forms of divination.
I have bolded the last sentence of your post because it particularly resonates with what I see as a major problem of modern astrological thinking. It's a view that defies logic.
this is the first mention by therese using the word 'logic' which i challenged directly by suggesting logic is not the only means of acquiring knowledge.
james_m wrote: does logic trump intuition or do we need both in order to understand our world and astrology more fully?
i went on to discuss the astrological symbolism of mercury and the moon, 2 planets that represent 2 different aspects of the mind - the conscious and subconscious mind. i didn't give an explanation for these terms, nor did i give an explanation of intuition but if someone is interested they can read up on the terms via the internet. bottom line for me is this - intuition is another form of perception which i associate on some level with the mind. whether one wants to connect it to an outer planet in terms of symbolism, i still believe the moon plays a key role in it's ability to function and come to the surface.. here is a short quote on intuition that i like. "Intuition is often considered the ability to synthesize and deduce from all of our accumulated unconscious, or subconscious experiences.."

i think it really depends on how these terms are used as to how they might be applied astrologically, but that is beside the point for me here. the point is that because something can't be explained logically, it must therefore be invalid which is how i take therese's comments/interpretation of martins word. i strongly disagree with that viewpoint fwiw.

86
RodJM wrote
Paying attention to accepted definitions would be first step towards hauling it into academia.
Do you think that would good for astrology? Or not? I expect that very debate to eventually surface within astrology. Do astrologers want astrology to eventually be a respected topic of study? Or would they be happy to let it continue to be "to each his own?"

Just now I posted some of the Gauquelin findings on the Moon. How many astrologers are aware of those findings? How many would prefer to continue with their own opinion and find reasons to ignore the Gauquelin research, zodiac research, historical translations and so forth? It's so much easier to remain with a personal belief system. Personal belief systems are comfort zones.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

87
Therese Hamilton wrote: Do astrologers want astrology to eventually be a respected topic of study? Or would they be happy to let it continue to be "to each his own?"
is astrology art or science? or, a bit of both? i tend towards the art end myself. words like 'respect' kinda bug me! respect has to be earned and i don't think it is gotten via putting on a label on your shirt, so much are getting it by demonstration and leading by example. i don't really give a fig how many doctorates a person has.. if they have something relevant to say about astrology, or think they know something valuable and relevant - let them share it, otherwise it isn't worth much to anyone regardless of the titles that they have..

Therese Hamilton wrote: Just now I posted some of the Gauquelin findings on the Moon. How many astrologers are aware of those findings? How many would prefer to continue with their own opinion and find reasons to ignore the Gauquelin research, zodiac research, historical translations and so forth? It's so much easier to remain with a personal belief system. Personal belief systems are comfort zones.
i am 3/4 of the way thru barbaults book that came out 2014 - the value of astrology.. he discussed gauguelin's research a number of times in the book. of course back in the 80's the gauguelins were on speaking tours and i saw francious when she happened to come to vancouver back then too.. i had read a few of their books at the time. i took a special interest in what they had to say about the moon as i have it rising in my chart.

everyone has a personal belief system. are you suggesting you don't have one? lol..