Several thoughts came to mind while reading some of these replies one of them was an old saying of many anthropologists, which is so popular it made it INTO an indiana jones movie "this class is about facts, if you want the truth, Philosophy 101 is down the hall." truth is relative, fact is usually a bit easier to pin down.

That being said I think Astrology is also very much under the same umbrella as truth, while planetary position and such are fact, interpretation is very subjective and when taken out of context is unlikely to make any sense what so ever.

Also, I think Boris that your original question has got naught to do with what you really want to know, which seems to be something about how needs change over time??? Toms answers to your origianl question are very astute and on target, In my opnion, but it doesn't seem to be the answer you were looking for.

I know Toms answers can be a tad ascerbic on occaision, but they are also generally on target. again in my opinion. he's taken a bit of getting used to, but now I find I miss his responses when he's away for a bit.


Granny

Hi Tom,

Is anyone able to define truth? I can't say I have seen a definition that means anything. Personally, I don't believe there is such a thing as absolute truth and I agree with you that by saying that, it could logically follow on that there is no such thing as relative truth. But I don't see that it follows on that this would mean all ideas are the same because we don't know the truth. Hitler's ideas are as good as anyone's in one sense because they are merely a reflection of the collective at the time. Do you really think that Hitler had that sort of power that he could persuade huge numbers of people if they were not resonating to the ideas already?

I was interested in your idea that traditional astrology reflects reality quite nicely. In what way? And does it do this in a way that modern astrology can't? I'm not sure I can agree that reality is just reality regardless of who we are but I'd like to know more about how you (or anyone else) see it in terms of traditional astrology or whether you think modern astrology is unable to do this in the same way.

Does astrology reflect reality or do the interpretations of the astrologer do the reflecting? After all, the goal is not knowing the astrological techniques but coming to insights through those techniques. Traditional astrology seems to have some clear and tight methods that help the astrologer come up with clear interpretations. As a personal example, the modern thought of planet=sign=house was one of the worst things to happen to me when I was first trying to learn astrology. After doing a few Sun, Leo, 5th house circles, I would put the books away for another year. Deb?s work on the houses has been a huge help.

I must admit my discomfort at tossing around the phrase ?traditional astrology?. Is the 17th century too late to qualify? A lot of incorrect translations seem to have crept in during the Greek to Arabic to Latin voyage. Should we be purists and stick with Hellenistic times? As with ideas of truth and reality, the simple idea of a traditional astrology makes me uneasy.

Kirk Writes:

As with ideas of truth and reality, the simple idea of a traditional astrology makes me uneasy.

Me, too. I think, in very broad terms, that traditional Western astrology is the astrology that was practiced prior to 1700 (roughly). Within that time frame we have Hellenistic astrology, medieval astrology, and what I'll call early modern astrology to describe the era of Lilly et al. Within each of those we have differences in ideas and technique. So, you're right, no one set of techniques or ideas can be called "tradtional astrology."

However, I do think there is a distinct difference between what came before our arbitrary date of 1700 and what came after particularly from the late 19th century on. Contemporary psychological astrology bears very little resemblence, in my view, to the astrology practiced in Lilly's day for both philosophical reasons as well as technique and goals of the astrologer. The common threads of pre- 1700 astrology are stronger than the common threads of post 1700 astrology which seems to have taken off in a variety of directions starting with Theosophy and ending up with psychology, and including all sorts of other things, such as the use of hypothetical planets. So when I say "tradtional astrology" I'm refering to the earlier period but I admit it is still a pretty broad term.


Sue writes:

I don't see that it follows on that this would mean all ideas are the same because we don't know the truth. Hitler's ideas are as good as anyone's in one sense because they are merely a reflection of the collective at the time. Do you really think that Hitler had that sort of power that he could persuade huge numbers of people if they were not resonating to the ideas already?

If truth is relative, then it follows, according to those who use this line of reasoning, that one idea is as good as another regardless of what it is. To cite the oft used cliche' "Who's to say I'm wrong?" Well that brings us to the problem of Hitler or any other evil one wishes to cite. I am judging (oh what a hateful word that has become) Adolph Hitler's ideas (Aryan superiority to name one; the usefulness of genocide as another) as utterly contemptible regardless of how many people he persuaded otherwise. I think it is perverse to argue that one idea is as good as another for this reason. Hitler's ideas, are repulsive to a civlized society. This is a truth. No rational person could argue otherwise, and therefore it is not relative.

I wonder how many of the "truth is relative" squad will give George W. Bush the benefit of that doubt? Not many I'd wager. The idea that the truth is not relative, does not mean we know everything there is to know, or that reasonable people cannot reasonably disagree, or that we have it within our power to know everything. It only means that manknd has discovered some truths and still seeks others.

The other point, which I will not dwell on, is the use of the word "reality." If we find it elusive to define that term, then of course we can be as relative as we want. This is the sort of thing that makes sophists what they are or were.

Granny writes:

I know Toms answers can be a tad ascerbic on occasion,

You don't mean acerbic, you mean charming, right?

Tom

Hitler's ideas, are repulsive to a civlized society. This is a truth. No rational person could argue otherwise, and therefore it is not relative.

Well, naturally I couldn't agree more with this. My point is that they are not Hitler's truths but the truths of the collective at a particular time. Otherwise, this would not have happened. And this is not 'Truth' as such.

I've been thinking about this a lot today but I am away from home so will have to get back to you on it. For me, it's not the concept of there being an absolute Truth that I have a problem with but how we can define what it is. It just seems like such a lame word to describe a concept that is so powerful. After I had been pontificating on this for some time I went back to reading my book. I was reading a book by Frances Yates when I came across something interesting. She was quoting from one of the parts of the Corpus Hermeticum where Trismegistus is talking with his son Tat. Tat asks him what Truth is. He replies 'that which is not polluted, which has no limit, no colour, no form, is motionless, naked, shining, which can only be apprehended by itself, the unalterable Good, the Incorporeal.' It goes on to say that Truth cannot be perceived by the senses and can only be known by the effects of its power and energy, which demands that a person must be capable of understanding birth in God.

This is more like it. To speak of whether George Bush is speaking the truth or John Kerry or whether anyone is speaking or comprehending the truth of any given situation is to miss the point of 'Truth' in its pure form.

I assume you're speaking of elections, as in electing a time to emigrate. Since the outer planets are regarded, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, as a pretty malefic lot (When was the last time you heard someone say "Oh good I'm having a Uranus transit!"), why would you want Uranus there (end of the matter) in an election?

Tom, I meant natal charts , not elections.
In fact in 1984 KGB left not much room for elective activity

However, were I in a position to do elections in those days ,Uranus in the 4th would be a choice - "swift and easy roots' disruption "
I am afraid your attitude towards Uranus is a bit traditional
After all don't you see that it's Uranus who makes our conversation possible!

Hi, Granny!

what you really want to know, which seems to be something about how needs change over time???

Originally, I was curious about someone's attempts to figure out how outdated world-view of ancients was reflected in their astrological thinking.
My take on astrology is basically temporal.
Do you agree that Astrology is intrinsically the Science of Time?

Do you agree that Astrology is intrinsically the Science of Time?

Boris,
My instant response is that astrology is the art of time interpretation. Having said that, I realize that I have no clear thoughts to follow my statement with and am sheepishly leaving the stage.

Hello,

Boris writes:

I am afraid your attitude towards Uranus is a bit traditional

It's nothing to be afraid of.

After all don't you see that it's Uranus who makes our conversation possible

No I don't. Mercury makes it possible. This is the point of some of us traditionalists. The outers don't really add much to the chart. Communication was with us long before we were aware of Uranus. So was letter writing. To argue that electronic letter writing is Uranus and paper letter writing is Mercury is to split hairs unnecessarily, i.e., Ocam's razor.The technology that accomplishes this is secondary. Computers are communication and calculation devices, ergo: Mercury.

Sue writes:

Well, naturally I couldn't agree more with this. My point is that they are not Hitler's truths but the truths of the collective at a particular time. Otherwise, this would not have happened. And this is not 'Truth' as such.

That these things happened is true. That they were good ideas is not.

'that which is not polluted, which has no limit, no colour, no form, is motionless, naked, shining, which can only be apprehended by itself, the unalterable Good, the Incorporeal.'

I love this, and it really leads to other things about the tradtional viewpoint that I'm not going to touch on right now, but I can't square it with the other things being said about truth being relative. This does not seem to be a relative statement.

To speak of whether George Bush is speaking the truth or John Kerry or whether anyone is speaking or comprehending the truth of any given situation is to miss the point of 'Truth' in its pure form.

I was not clear and I'm sorry about that. My point was this: If we are to accept the truth is relative then we cannot criticize George W. Bush (or any politician for that matter) for his behavior in the Iraq war, since he is behaving in a manner consistent with "his truth." We can disagree, but we can't criticize because whatever we say that is not in accordance with what Mr. Bush believes is relative and is our truth, and we are all entitiled to our truth, even Mr. BUsh. This is where I see the whole thing getting silly. Once we start to apply the idea of relative truth it falls apart, unless we believe that truth doesn't matter, and then we get Orwellian. "War is Peace; Truth is lies," etc The truth is the Iraq war was necessary or it wasn't. The truth can't be both. And if we play a word game or two to say that it can be both, then we become irrational. I am tall or I am not. I have blue eyes or I don't. I am pleasant company to some, or I'm not. There is nothing relative in these statements.

Socrates gave an example something like this 2500 years ago: the patient has a tumor. One doctor says it is malignant; another doctor says it is benign. They can't both be correct. One is right and one is wrong, or they are both wrong. They cannot both be right.

Have a great day folks.


Tom

Tom, good morning!

Communication was with us long before we were aware of Uranus. So was letter writing. To argue that electronic letter writing is Uranus and paper letter writing is Mercury is to split hairs unnecessarily, i.e., Ocam's razor.The technology that accomplishes this is secondary. Computers are communication and calculation devices, ergo: Mercury.

OK, but isn't technology Uranian?

1)What Mercury is unable to do is to transform information.
2)Mercury can not transmit information momentarily over oceans.
3)Mercury would fail to display information for COLLECTIVE instant and simultaneous viewing and discussion ...
Here we enter the Realm of Uranus.

I believe some clarification is in order

1) define science:

Because from my position, it seems as though everyone has a different definition and is assuming everyone else agrees.

2) 'that which is not polluted, which has no limit, no colour, no form, is motionless, naked, shining, which can only be apprehended by itself, the unalterable Good, the Incorporeal.'

OY, this quote sounds lovely but is a sword Portia would find dificulty in wielding I think! Truth is not necessarily good, it is not necessarily shining, at times it is glaring, at times it seems buried in mystery. Truth is always subjective. I could probably go on for hours about why this definition of truth is a terrible sword! It has great emotional pull though, did Dylan use this as a definition? where is the quote from?

I still feel you confuse truth with fact. Funny thing I had thought to use a reference to hitler yesterday and changed my mind. That part of history does seem to reverberate glaring examples of logic and duty gone horribly awry!

Boris,

Ahhh an evolution of the question, I understand.

Astrology the science of time?

I would call astrology the observation of time. Few people seem to take full advantage of the information laid bare before them, but merely ride the timeline in awe... well from what I see. I think many people come to astrologers for comfort, to have you tell them that what they hope is true, is and what they hope is not true, is not. The artful astrologer can tell them what they observe and help them adjust to the facts, as opposed to their self inflicted truths... again this is but one point of view, mostly todays point of view, tomorrow we can hope brings further enlightenment.

I am always charmed by you Tom, even when I find your answers ascerbic.


Granny

OK, but isn't technology Uranian?

I don?t want to side-track the discussion with another debate about the various ways to interpret the meaning of a word, but I don?t see that it is. At least since the invention of the wheel every generation has had technology, and since the human species is inventive and ingenious, every generation has had its ?new technology? (although that will inevitably become ?old hat? to the generations that follow). Inventiveness and ingenuity are traits we assign to Mercury, and the word ?mercurial? doesn?t mean ?quick, changeable and volatile? for no reason.

1)What Mercury is unable to do is to transform information.

Why not? It?s been associated with translating, transforming and transmuting as long as it?s been associated with relaying, and communicating.

2)Mercury can not transmit information momentarily over oceans.

Our perspective of what ?a moment? is may be very limited (and it may also depend on the size of the ocean since primitive peoples relayed important messages across the sea quickly by lighting a trail of fires as beacons). If people accept that the essential principle of communicating a message or thought is attributed to Mercury, the principle remains in tact whether transmitted by speech, letter, signals, flags, flares, email, telephone, fax or psychic impression.

3)Mercury would fail to display information for COLLECTIVE instant and simultaneous viewing and discussion ...
Here we enter the Realm of Uranus.

Whilst the capabilities of what we can do might have evolved, I still don?t see that there is any essential difference between the principle of delivering information ?en mass? via a speech in a public place, or a televised transmission of that speech to audiences who are not personally present. I?d also say that all forms of marketing, PR and propaganda can fall under the remit of Mercury, who is the trickster as well as the ?messenger?.

I do understand your point, but I think that at best Uranus becomes an adverb to Mercury. I don?t see it as signifying the principle of communication or technology, but when it operates upon those matters it does so according to its own energy (often in a manner that crashes down boundaries, creates disruption, and brings a breakthrough or release). This may be quite relevant to your wider point because whilst it?s true that certain perspectives and techniques in astrology have become more prominent at different times, what has remained a golden thread of consistency is the way that the traditional planets maintained their essence. Mars is essentially a planet of conflict, Saturn a planet of loss or reduction whichever perspective or time period you study.

I?m dubious of anyone who claims that there is only one valid approach to astrology but there is a concern amongst a lot of credible astrologers today (including those who have great experience in and respect for modern techniques), that we are in danger of diminishing core principles and losing the practical application of solid and confident judgement by relying upon symbolism that is undecided or untested by tradition. Houses are symbolic, zodiac signs don?t exist as visible realities, hence it can be argued that their accepted meaning is heavily dependent upon our subjective understanding of that meaning. But the planetary energies are the absolute kingpin around which astrological lore is written. I haven?t yet come across a chart, from any period of history, that hasn?t made sense to me, providing I follow the author?s approach, because the planetary interpretations are entirely in line with that which I?ve learned through studying Lilly.

A study of history and historical approaches to astrology is much more revealing of consistencies than inconsistencies, providing we look for core principles rather than fashionable techniques. Let?s not undermine Mercury?s role in digital communication through novel technology because, really, every age that has gone before considered itself the ?modern age? at that time, and they all thought that their new inventions were amazing revolutions of ingenuity, innovation and science.