I wondered why no one has written about the similar perspective (to Perry's) expressed in Rick Tarnas' Cosmos and Psyche. Admittedly, he did not go on and on in the way that Glenn did, but he basically made the same argument. And it was obvious that he knows less than Glenn does about traditional astrology (by which I mean that I would bet dollars to donuts that Tarnas does not even know the existence of terms like "sect" or "timelord.") and yet he simply writes it off as primitive and superstitious.

The other thing that gets under my skin about both of these guys is that even though they both decry "determinism" if you read their actual dilineations of charts (particularly Tarnas's & Groff's writings on the traumatic nature on pre-birth matrix) it is clear that they are just as trapped in a causal mode as anyone else. Formula goes like this: Out planet square of conjunction to the Sun or Moon = early childhood trauma = unhappy adult life which continuously replicates the original traumatic archetypal patter.

Three cheers for florenced. Good astrology is no more deterministic than good psychology. I might even argue it is less so. It's been brought to my attention that Perry is surprised that his most recent diatribe resulted in such a backlash. That he is surprised is revealing.

Admittedly, he did not go on and on in the way that Glenn did, but he basically made the same argument. And it was obvious that he knows less than Glenn does about traditional astrology (by which I mean that I would bet dollars to donuts that Tarnas does not even know the existence of terms like "sect" or "timelord.") and yet he simply writes it off as primitive and superstitious.

Tarnas is an astrologer, but he has a stronger background in history and philosophy than Perry. I didn't read Cosmos and Psyche as the descriptions of the work didn't interest me, but I did read his book, many years ago, Passion of the Western Mind. However, this is philosophy not astrology and I didn't know Tarnas was an astrologer when I read it. I admit that when I come to astrology descriptions written by non-astrologers or people who I think are non-astrologers, I tend to skim them. I ought to look at it again because I think he does mention astrology in that book.

On the other hand I don't think it is out of line to suggest that some or even much of astrology is deterministic. Schoener said something like man has a free will but not the will to use it. If we don't use it, what determines our actions? The other side of the coin is that we cannot will ourseleves to do everything, if we so wish. We have talents and abilities and lack talents and other abilities, so we are limited in what we can do, and some are more limited than others. In that sense there is a degree of fatalism in all lives. Hugh Hefner is not suited to the life of a Cistercian monk no matter how hard he tries (or might have tired. He is probably more suited to that life now than at any other time). The chart, if it can do anything, can point out certain areas that are sutibable for us. It does not predetermine every aspect of our lives.

Finally if there is no determinism in Perry's astrology, none whatsoever, why does he bother with it?

Tom

"On the other hand I don't think it is out of line to suggest that some or even much of astrology is deterministic."

I agree with this, and you are right--if one thinks about it there are all kinds of "determinisms" in life. The country, culture, religion and economic circumstances one is born to, the educational opportunities, one's physical beauty (yes, it is an advantage in most places) and yes, the emotional health or lack of in ones family and culture all have a determining effect on the trajectory of a life. Every astrologer, regardless of the techniques or philosophical perspective, always engages with the native's biography and in doing so implicitly acknowledges "cause" which is a form of determinism.

So, I think that the whole determinism argument is red herring and distracts from the "real" point of Perry's (and Tarnas's) "arguments" which is that their techniques are better. And since they haven't or won't actually study (and test!) with an open mind the techniques they are attacking, they must resort to pseudo-intellectual arguments in an attempt to discredit the "other guy's" astrology. ie: "pretending that those who employ traditional technique's in their astrology are hopeless fatalists (which is outrageous, because if didn't believe that fate could be negotiated with to some extent at least, why would they bother with Horary or electional astrology). On his website Perry writes:

Since I believe the Universe has intentions for us, I am not inclined to help my clients control or exploit their fate. I am interested in helping them learn from it. Accordingly, my ethics prevent me from advising clients on how to take advantage of a transit for personal gain or profit. I don't tell people when they should or should not do things, like get married, start a business, quit a job, get a divorce, or take a vacation. It has been my observation that whatever the individual does or experiences is always consistent with the nature of the transit anyway. What would be the purpose, then, of trying to outsmart such a profoundly intelligent and obviously purposeful cosmos? Is there not a certain hubris when we muddle in such matters?

So, it could be argued that Perry is projecting his own disowned hopeless fatalism onto his clients when he refuses to even make suggestions as to how a client might negotiate with a difficult transit. From my reading of the articles on his website, he seems to be making the argument that it would be unethical for an astrologer to intervene in any way in a client's 'fate." Which from psychological perspective, is beyond weird--because the fact of the matter is that psychologists make "suggestions" ALL the time! Making suggestions regarding personal perspective and practical action which might be taken is part of a psychologist's job! No, they shouldn't "tell" a client what they must do, but it is good psychology to point out, for example, to a hopeless of depressed patient that perhaps she does have some options and to even give some examples. It is the psychologist's job to help a client out of a mental rut and to give them hope. And to remind them of reality (like maybe you should stop hoping your alcoholic spouse will stop drinking, particularly since he has shown that he has no interest in doing so--not easy to hear, but reality, and not so different from a horary judgment that says that if you sue you will loose.) Or that if you have been recently diagnosed with MS, you will have to accept that you might have learn to live with the fact that you can't go mountain climbing anymore, and help them find other ways to find meaning and pleasure in life. I don't see that even traditional astrologers would have a hard time being psychological/deterministic in that sense. Eg: a chart could help illuminate talents etc which might bring as much pleasure as mountain climbing (5th house stuff).

As for Tarnas: I knew he was into astrology from his book "Prometheus the Awakener" which was published before Passion of the Western Mind, which I own and use as a historical reference from time to time. But Cosmos and Psyche is a mess. I forced myself to read the whole damn thing and it was an irritating experience to say the least. Irritating because he has the ability to cloak his ignorance behind his considerable academic knowledge, but if you really know astrology it is clear that he is as myopic and ignorant as Perry is. Which is shocking, since one would think that at least as a historian, he would be particularly interested in the history of astrology--which, sadly, he seems remarkably uncurious about. Because he basically makes the same "point' that Perry does--that it is primitive and unevolved because it is old.

Wow. I've got someone who agrees with me a lot. Halleleujah.

The country, culture, religion and economic circumstances one is born to, the educational opportunities, one's physical beauty (yes, it is an advantage in most places)

Yes it is. All sorts of studies show that people who are considered better than average looking are more likely to get a job offer than better qualified people who do not have the same good looks. It doesn't always work that way, but it is an advantage, as socio-economic background is an advantage and a higher level of education is an advantage. There is such a thing as prestige and rightly or wrongly it has effects.

Every astrologer, regardless of the techniques or philosophical perspective, always engages with the native's biography and in doing so implicitly acknowledges "cause" which is a form of determinism.

I was talking about this in a different context earlier in the week. The chart is static, but the native's life is not. The chart is read, by moderns and traditionalists within a particular context. By reading the chart that way, determinism tends to take a hike. The example I used was tennis player/activist Arthur Ashe. No astrologer would have looked at Ashe's chart, directions, returns etc, when Ashe was a child and said: "This young man will win Wimbledon in 1975."

Given Ashe's background growing up in a poor area of Richmond, Virginia in the 1940s this would have been laughable. However if Ashe went to an astrologer in say 1972, it would not be out of line for an astrologer, knowing that in 1972 Ashe was a top flight player capable of being the world's No. 1 male player, he might well have looked at the same chart and same returns and said; "You know, if you work at it you have a good shot at winning Wimbledon in 1975. " The difference is context. In the first example Ashe was a child and had yet to think one minute about tennis. In the second he was a tennis force to be reckoned with so winning Wimbledon is a legitimate prediction.

This is not the fatalism that Perry is talking about. He would have his readers believe that traditional astrologers routinely do things as suggested by the first example. I don't know who Perry is thinking of, but I don't know anyone who does that.

So, I think that the whole determinism argument is red herring and distracts from the "real" point of Perry's (and Tarnas's) "arguments" which is that their techniques are better.

Bullseye!

So, it could be argued that Perry is projecting his own disowned hopeless fatalism onto his clients when he refuses to even make suggestions as to how a client might negotiate with a difficult transit.

Yes and projection is a defense mechanism employed when one's world view is crumbling. We all use defense mechanisms, but when the defense mechanism becomes the world view it is a problem. Could it be that Perry sees his world view or astrology-view is crumbling?

From my reading of the articles on his website, he seems to be making the argument that it would be unethical for an astrologer to intervene in any way in a client's 'fate."

Too much Star Trek watching.

one would think that at least as a historian, he would be particularly interested in the history of astrology--

Historians rarely show an interest in astrology. This is one reason so many texts were lost. It is considered an old superstition. Tester might be the academic who turned this around a bit. Neugebauer got there first, but I wonder, I don't know, if other academics took his suggestion to learn astrology in order to understand the ancient world. But even Tester (A History of Western Astrology)seems to have underestimated the importance and influence of astrology until the Enlightenment.

The bright spot is that there is a small but growing interest in astrology among historians. According to Rob Hand it attracts because it is an area that is largely unexplored or looked at a bit more cynically, it is one of the few things left for a PhD candidate to study.

that it is primitive and unevolved because it is old.

On a personal note I am tired of hearing the word "evolved" or its derivitives. The speaker or writer may as well be honest and substitute "good" and "bad." Their arguments are that shallow.. It's a buzz word.

?the greatest lie of all in the sciences and metaphysics: that we are the product of a process of maturation, in which all our knowledge is superior to that of all other cultures; and that we have refined ourselves out of and beyond most of the nonsense that held back previous cultures.? -- John Morrill

Tom

does anyone have a link for the perry article?

i couldn't find it on the NCGR website

thanks

robin
________
ROLL A JOINT

As florenced reported previously, it isn't published online, but one can get the flavor of it from previous articles he's published on his website.

See:

http://www.aaperry.com/index.asp?pgid=51

See:

I am not inclined to help my clients control or exploit their fate. I am interested in helping them learn from it. Accordingly, my ethics prevent me from advising clients on how to take advantage of a transit for personal gain or profit.

But:

When counseling clients, my guiding value is to empower them, not to take their power away by presuming to know who they should marry, where they should live, or what career they should have.

Again:

I am not inclined to help my clients

But:

My guiding value is to empower them

"I don't help: I empower."

A difference which reflects a distinction between assistance and influence.

Andrew

"I don't help: I empower."

To give the more obvious paraphrase, "I don't keep to my fiduciary duty to my clients; I just want to be their shiny vanilla guru while lightening their wallets."

And just plain cold hearted. Or lazy. Because if an astrologer (or a psychologist, which is where Perry supposedly has some "real" training) is not even willing to explore practical OPTIONS with the issue which is concerning the client....then where the hell is the potential "empowerment?" Because it really sounds like what Perry does is confine himself to telling the client just how screwed up (neurotic and childish) he or she is. Kind of the way he does other astrologers.

Like I said before, it is bad astrology AND psychology.

My one experience with ISAR (Glenn Perry's clique) left me cold. They sat there in their suits and pronounced on astrological ethics. The truth is that ISAR is a joke. They failed to follow through on their commitment to mail out certificates to those in attendance. And one of the ISAR presenters had to be forced to honour her commitment to donate a reading as a conference door prize. The woman who won it had to resort finally to speaking to the conference organizer before this "ethical astrologer" honoured her commitment.

Tara

funny that you talk about NCGR. Alphee Lavoie, the webmaster, did my ACG but whe i asked him certain questions he gave me vague answers like ? i use 200 criteria to judge an ACG? etc etc
Well it happens that my home town is suposed to be good for nothing but the holiday home Faro , slightly southeast is good for work as you can see in the links. The chart is practically the same. Only the MC changes by 1 degree. Do you notice anything??



http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?go.x ... =21&go.y=9

http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?go.x ... =10&go.y=9

"I don't help: I empower."

A difference which reflects a distinction between assistance and influence.

Seems to me this is a distinction without a difference.

Tom