Billy wrote:Negative, Bad people. Are these the ... child abusers, humanistic astrologers.

I don't know exactly what Theo meant by "negative, bad people", Billy, and he may indeed include humanistic astrologers in that category - but I didn't see anything in his post that compels that interpretation.

In general fruitful discussion has to start by establishing some common ground. If you feel that what he said about humanistic astrology is unfair there are hundreds of ways to draw him into a debate on it; probably you'll find that either you've misunderstood his position or he's misunderstood the humanists. But what you posted doesn't lead anywhere useful.

Malcolm

Hi there its perhaps worth focussing on Uranus and its cycles. By extension this also brings the focus on the United States since the two were 'born' at the similar times. In fact the Uranian discovery chart has a Uranus Mars Sag/Gemini Opposition and in the US charts along with Uranus in early Gemini we also have Mars in later Gemini. So plenty of scope for the US to be a forceful champion for the cause of "freedom".

Uranus last made a return to its discovery position in July 1947 and the return prior to that was August 1863.

The earlier return was the heart of the US civil war and 1863 brought Lincoln's famous Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address both crucial to the cause of unfettered Uranian freedom.

The 1947 return was marked by the assertion of the Truman Doctrine with its support for Free Peoples on a global scale. It also marked the start of the cold war with the beginning of broadcast of the Voice of America and the setting up of the CIA, Joint Chiefs of staff, Departments of Defence , and National Security.

For the US the parallel 'project' in its attempt to curtail communism was the growth of free markets and under that 1947 return , the Marshall Plan with its enormous pump priming of the European economies which enabled huge post war growth.

Its noticeable that under the opposition to the Discovery chart position in 1987/88 we had both the fruition of that struggle against the communist world with the collapse of the Iron Curtain , and Black Monday in the UK and stock market convulsions.

Now - here we are approaching the waning Square to the Discovery chart position (exact April 2009). typically the squares bring concrete results and of course with the waning square there is some need to internalise or reassess those events.

Certainly for the US the "freedom project" and the unfettered free market has hit the buffers and is entering that closing square phase of reassessment and reflection. I guess the Saturn opposition to Uranus is giving us a foretaste of this closing phase which will undoubtably be even more in focus with the scope for events of April next year!

No doubt with the United States the forthcoming Uranus Discovery Return of 2031 will bring a whole new assertion of Uranian ideals as it has with the previous returns!!

mike c

ps of course the waxing square for Uranus this time around was 1967 - nuff said!
pps all those hard aspects to the discovery chart produced some pretty epic weather. storms and nasty winters, so one of the next two winters could be a record breaker???

Nice review of the historical events under Uranus Mike... As for the global weather, I've been working on the climate for the 2010s, and confirmed my finding that we are heading towards a era of global cooling, from the current era of global warming which began in 1980, and will last, according to my calculations to about mid-2016.

From what I can ascertain, a era of Saturn is nearing by mid-2016 and will last to about the year 2052. It applies to the world's climate, which will see more La Ninas, and anomolous cooling events rather than the warming the world has experienced since the 1980s.

There is about another seven-and-a-half years left to this current global warming cycle as ruled by the Sun. With Saturn's lordship coming in mid-2016, increased winter-like storms, and more "classic winters" will be the norm for the northern hemisphere. This global cooling will reach it's peak cycle around 2034, and then begin to slide downwards gradually through the decade of the 2040s.

I don't know exactly what Theo meant by "negative, bad people", Billy, and he may indeed include humanistic astrologers in that category - but I didn't see anything in his post that compels that interpretation.

In general fruitful discussion has to start by establishing some common ground. If you feel that what he said about humanistic astrology is unfair there are hundreds of ways to draw him into a debate on it; probably you'll find that either you've misunderstood his position or he's misunderstood the humanists. But what you posted doesn't lead anywhere useful.

I was trying to establish some common ground, as we need to know more what these concepts refer to. Humanistic astrologers, whoever Theo conceptualises these as being, are a side issue I?d have thought.

In simplistic terms this opposition is an encounter between the old and the new, and the dynamic of change. It seems improbable that someone could be able to define 'bad, negative and common positive interests', in ways that strike me as generating a fruitful discussion. However lets see if Theo can defend his language in ways we can make sense of before jumping to any conclusions.

Theo wrote:

Concerning my perspective of the global Saturn/Uranus opposition, one of the easiest ways to not fall under the more unfavorable tone of this opposition is to cooperate with others of common positive interests, and to leave behind those who seek mischief, and harbor ill-will towards others.

There are some millions of folks out there with strong religious beliefs who find those of us who study and use astrology to be not at all acceptable and most certainly to be doing the mischief of the Devil. If they 'leave us behind' they will have a much easier time during the Saturn-Uranus opposition.

There are many thousands (millions?) of us out there studying and using astrology who find those of such strong religious beliefs to be causing mischief through the intolerant forcing of their beliefs upon others. We will certainly have a much better time during the Saturn-Uranus opposition if we leave them and their intolerance behind.

So the opposition period should be a piece of cake. Just pick your group.

The point seems to be one of only cooperating with those who share your beliefs. You don't need to question or change your beliefs and practices, nor do you need to leave your comfort zone and accept the beliefs of others. Just choose the people you want to cooperate with.


Malcolm wrote:

I'm not quite sure why I'm writing in this vein; but a thread like this can easily descend into just swapping dire predictions and I think we should be able to do more than that. Can we use astrology to help us understand the roots of the problems that are coming up? Does it offer any guidance to the attitudes we should adopt to face those problems? And can we use it to avoid repeating the mistakes that brought us to where we are now?

No. We don't need astrology. In fact, I think that collectively we should leave it far behind in working with the world's problems. Observation, facts, reasoning ? and a compassionate application of them ? work just fine. Astrology seems to bring in excessively subjective opinions, religious or philosophical bias, a distasteful (and dangerous) urge to be a prophet for one's society, and feet hovering some distance above the solid ground.

Kirk wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
I'm not quite sure why I'm writing in this vein; but a thread like this can easily descend into just swapping dire predictions and I think we should be able to do more than that. Can we use astrology to help us understand the roots of the problems that are coming up? Does it offer any guidance to the attitudes we should adopt to face those problems? And can we use it to avoid repeating the mistakes that brought us to where we are now?

No. We don't need astrology. In fact, I think that collectively we should leave it far behind in working with the world's problems. Observation, facts, reasoning ? and a compassionate application of them ? work just fine. Astrology seems to bring in excessively subjective opinions, religious or philosophical bias, a distasteful (and dangerous) urge to be a prophet for one's society, and feet hovering some distance above the solid ground.

I think this is an excellent problem and point of discussion. I think that from the point of my philosophy or politics, or whatever rostrum or molehill I choose to stand on, astrology should provide me with information and the opportunity to manaeuver correctly according my point of perspective. But my astrology should not be biased and free from the philosophy and politics that I wish to examine or measure - or else I am simply due to loos myself and attempt to confirm my longings with a double 'yes'.

No. We don't need astrology. In fact, I think that collectively we should leave it far behind in working with the world's problems. Observation, facts, reasoning ? and a compassionate application of them ? work just fine.

I should not discourage youthful optimism but the idea that we can solve all the problems of the world by rational debate is plain silly,contrary to evidence and out of place in an astrological forum.Are we really disciples of reason as we debate religion and stargazing in the 21st century? Maybe we cannot halt disaster by prediction but if anyone feels astrology has no value then why bother studying it?

Andrew wrote:

I think that from the point of my philosophy or politics, or whatever rostrum or molehill I choose to stand on, astrology should provide me with information and the opportunity to manaeuver correctly according my point of perspective.

Astrology works well as a personal guide and illuminating viewpoint. Like other philosophical or religious thoughts and beliefs it can make a person stronger and help him or her develop a clearer and larger view. But to take astrology directly into the realms of economic or social restructuring is another matter. We prepare best silently and privately in our own way and astrology can be part of that backstage preparation.


Matt wrote:

I should not discourage youthful optimism but the idea that we can solve all the problems of the world by rational debate is plain silly,contrary to evidence and out of place in an astrological forum.

Matt, please take another look. I wrote ?Observation, facts, reasoning ? and a compassionate application of them ? work just fine?. I even used italics for emphasis so as to be understood in the way I meant.

Your reply is very telling. You seem to have learned the New Age lesson: Reasoning is to be ridiculed and despised now as incomplete, coldhearted, and a tool of the patriarchy. But let's do keep in mind that the astrology we're using is completely Hellenized and thoroughly based on rational and logical philosophical and numerical structures. Our astrology has very little about it that's free-flowing, soft and feely. That is to be found in our compassionate application of it.

To come back to this thread's topic, 'scare-'em-silly' predictions of an upcoming economic depression, high crime and unemployment, social upheaval and heartbreak for the working masses look much more harmful and less productive than rational debate. The debate and discussions produce possible options and open to a sense of what alternatives there may be. Frightening predictions can possibly lead to productive discussions, but they most commonly stop progress through fear-induced dread and a sense of helplessness. Negative pronouncements seldom inspire. Those who concentrate on such predictions don't clearly see the harm they are causing ? or they don't care.

Are we really disciples of reason as we debate religion and stargazing in the 21st century?

Why not? ?Disciples of reason? can talk about anything. In fact, that's exactly what they do. Disciples of emotion and irrationality sometimes like to skip those time-consumimg debates and throw bombs at each other over such things as religion and stargazing.

Maybe we cannot halt disaster by prediction but if anyone feels astrology has no value then why bother studying it?

How did we arrive at the statement that astrology has no value?

Kirk wrote:Quote: Maybe we cannot halt disaster by prediction but if anyone feels astrology has no value then why bother studying it?

How did we arrive at the statement that astrology has no value?

I think that is a fair comment, either as a statement, reflection or an indirect question, Kirk.
Guy, do I have sometimes have problems in working out where you are coming from.
I admire your rationale and sense of reasoning, but some times it is like being up against a Geoffrey Dean look-alike!

I think you should consider this a compliment, Kirk. Please give us some room and space to explore the embroider of our astrological philosophies, but then continue to help us work out the technicalities of reality.

Kirk wrote:No. We don't need astrology. In fact, I think that collectively we should leave it far behind in working with the world's problems. Observation, facts, reasoning ? and a compassionate application of them ? work just fine. Astrology seems to bring in excessively subjective opinions, religious or philosophical bias, a distasteful (and dangerous) urge to be a prophet for one's society, and feet hovering some distance above the solid ground.

But observation, facts and reasoning only work at all within a framework of beliefs and assumptions - many of which we don't even know that we're making.

I'll use a quote from Theo's post as an example:

... malefic planetary energies will be allowed to function, and will not be neutralized unless more people utilize the warnings of what will come in the future under global transits, and cultivate positive thought patterns that result in positive actions.

I can see how the view of certain planetary energies being malefic came about (and I've no argument with the term in client work, which is fundamentally subjective) but it rests completely on an assumption that we humans are central to our own existence.

Somewhere along the line I developed a (half-playful) philosophy that 'all the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players' whose purpose is to provide entertainment for an audience of gods. From that perspective, energies that we find subjectively malefic are in fact wholly positive because they are a source of dramatic tension, and to attempt to neutralise them is to violate our core purpose.

Whether or not there's any merit to that viewpoint, I think it illustrates how important our fundamental assumptions are - and how easy it is for reason to take us in quite the wrong direction. Reason rests on foundations of faith, conscious or unconscious, and I don't think we can begin to properly understand the world until we have acknowledged how much we take for granted, and have explored other possibilities.

Kirk wrote:Like other philosophical or religious thoughts and beliefs it can make a person stronger and help him or her develop a clearer and larger view. But to take astrology directly into the realms of economic or social restructuring is another matter.

I have problems with much of what Theo has written, even when I agree with the main thrust of it, because I don't see any evidence that astrology is sufficiently developed to justify the confidence with which he writes. But I certainly believe that economic and social cycles are as sensitive to astrological factors as individuals, and to my mind it makes no sense to try and understand those things - what they are and what they could be - without reference to astrology.

Malcolm

From Andrew,

I admire your rationale and sense of reasoning, but some times it is like being up against a Geoffrey Dean look-alike!

And that would be unpleasant in a field that likes to accessorize its Barbie dolls.


I'll use a couple quotes from Malcolm as starting points:

But observation, facts and reasoning only work at all within a framework of beliefs and assumptions - many of which we don't even know that we're making.

I'm getting way out of my league here with very little training or formal education in these matters, but it seems to me that there can never be a separate and pure human reasoning. It's the human mind using the human mind and watching itself use itself. Maybe we find a hint of a possible purity of reasoning at the opening of the gospel of John:
? ?In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.?

I don't know about you, but I start getting lost at the beginning and am completely adrift by the time someone is making this, that or the other ? unless, of course, he did not make any of it before (or after) it was made and the Word was. In which case the Word was delayed ? which, as we all know, sometimes happens ? and indeed first came after it was previously made before, of course.

But yes, there is human reasoning and collective standards of excellence concerning the use and procedures of that reasoning. Those standards are sufficiently universal to be mutually appreciated by various cultures.

I can see how the view of certain planetary energies being malefic came about (and I've no argument with the term in client work, which is fundamentally subjective) but it rests completely on an assumption that we humans are central to our own existence.

We are. It has to be that way. We were blessed/cursed with awareness of our existence and can't separate ourselves from our existence. We see astrological factors as helping or hurting us and that which we desire. Even if we want to be oh-so-modern and refuse to call any astrological factors malefic or bad, we still eagerly focus on what might be helpful ? therefore good. Why would humans even bother with astrology if it didn't help them get what they wanted? I can't see the possibility of a completely neutral and disinterested use of astrology.

I don't see only client work, but all of astrology as fundamentally subjective. Client work is individually subjective; all of astrology is collectively subjective. We wrote the rules. Saturn and Uranus were doing their planetary thing as they jogged around the Sun; then the human mind came along and gave meaning to the planets' existence and motion.

But what about astrology and the weather or earthquakes? How can events in an objective outer world be predicted by a thoroughly subjective astrology? A good place to start would be with the consideration that human consciousness may be more involved with participating in those events than the heritage of 19th century science would allow. A good place to pause and linger awhile would be with the fact that the success record of such mundane astrology predictions has been historically spotty and downright bad.

So let's just let Saturn and Uranus stare each other down from across the jogging track and go about our humble business of making helpful and productive changes in our own little corners of the world. We can still make comments and predictions from time to time. It's fun playing the role of the prophet ? but it needs to be done with a light touch.

Kirk wrote:

... the view of certain planetary energies being malefic ... rests completely on an assumption that we humans are central to our own existence.

We are. It has to be that way.

Immediately following that bit you quoted I had suggested a view of the world in which humans exist for a purpose outside themselves; in that context 'It has to be that way' is manifestly not true. Believe 'We are' by all means, but please don't imagine that the belief is compelled by reason.

We see astrological factors as helping or hurting us and that which we desire. Even if we want to be oh-so-modern and refuse to call any astrological factors malefic or bad, we still eagerly focus on what might be helpful

Indeed Kirk, but that which we desire is not necessarily fixed, and one of the ways we change it is by changing the terms in which we think about things. For me, focusing on what might be helpful includes interpreting bad experiences as indications that I need to change course in some way; if I saw such energies as inherently malefic then I would have to assume that Uranus/Saturn squaring my moon would bring problems no matter what I do. I see no reason to believe that, and it seems more useful to me not to believe it - it has nothing to do with wanting to be modern.

Previously you wrote:

Astrology seems to bring in excessively subjective opinions

but in your latest post you write

all of astrology [is] fundamentally subjective. Client work is individually subjective; all of astrology is collectively subjective.

I'm a bit puzzled how opinions can be excessively subjective in a field which is fundamentally subjective, but no doubt you can reconcile them.

It's fun playing the role of the prophet ? but it needs to be done with a light touch.

I can't argue with that. It's also fun playing the role of curmudgeon ? but that too needs to be done with a light touch. Mostly I think you do it very well, and I'll second Andrew's hope that you'll go on doing it, but I get the impression you sometimes forget it's a role.

Malcolm