Hi Olivia,

When I make a connection between astrology and religion I see absolutely no reason to claim that there always is or must be a connection with religious organizations. Religion is not synonymous with religious organizations.

My personal interest in this is that I dislike religious law telling people that they cannot pursue enquiries into areas of philosophies or sciences on pain of persecution or discrimination.

That's the sort of reply I had in mind after having made the connection with religion. We rightly protest against such doings, but these days we have an automatic negative reaction to 'Religion' and too easily summon up all sorts of threatening visions!

But Kirk, if you insist that astrologers and astrology are one in the same thing - I think you're reverting to the tool analogy that you were opposing a few posts back.

But I'm not saying they are the same thing! I think you're somewhat mistaken about ?Astrology - 9. Astrologers ? MERCURY?. Mercury serves as the universal planetary significator for astrology, and therefore could also be used to signify an astrologer. However, astrology is located in the 9th house when it comes to placing the areas of human life in a chart. Similarly, Venus is the universal significator of marriage and the 7th house is the house of marriage.

I can see astrologers as Mercury quite easily actually - we have to learn all kinds of things, and mess around with maths or computers or both to do calculations - all of which is Mercurial. It's not like we understand astrology of a piece, we don't (despite your dislike for 'trying out new techniques' instead of more reflection).

But my point is fairly simple: If you want to approach astrology as a science, there's no reason I can think of not to. If you want to approach it as a philosophy, I can think of no reason not to.

In either case, the study of astrology should not lead to kareit . I'm not sure of the English equivalent - cutting off, banishment, rather like excommunication or moreso, if you wish to be a member of an organised religion.

Nobody's forcing you to take up organised religion, but it is a personal decision, and many people find it meaningful, often central, to their lives. There's no reason you ought to have to give it up on account of finding meaning of some sort in the stars.

The meaning in the stars - that's astrology under Jupiter, or in 9, perhaps. But most of us are - Mercury. How studying those meanings could be considered not to be in service of the divine utterly perplexes me, whether one does it from a philosophical or a scientific point of view, or like many of us - a bit of both.

Maybe we get entangled over the notion of astrology as a spiritual, divinatory, and therefore religious subject. I don?t feel that astrology is religious. Certain aspects of it require trust and suspension of critical reasoning, but then so does the appreciation of symbolism in art and history. It?s a very complex subject. I have a faith in astrology being able to guide people, which I relate to the idea that everything is united, but I don?t stop to question whether the idea of being guided comes from within or from without. And how do we draw the line that makes the distinction between philosophy and religion? Difficult.

I do think that elements of science remain embedded in astrology, and always have done/will do. I know I have made this point before but I think we have to remember that, historically, there has always been a distinction drawn between ?natural astrology? and ?judicial astrology?. Historically Christianity only seems to have a real problem with judicial astrology and has been happy enough with natural astrology. That?s why William Ramesey, a staunch Catholic, felt fine about filling his 17th century ?Astrology Restored? with details of electional astrology, but abhorred the idea of horary astrology and rages against the practitioners of that.

To best define what astrology is, I just stick to the traditional notion of astrology being ?both a science and an art?. What?s ?an art?? I just looked the word up on dictionary.com and got:

• ?the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.?

That?ll do for me. Astrology is one of the very few places where the mind allows rational knowledge and subjective understanding to come together to create something indefinable by normal standards. If we try to rationalise that, then we?ve already destroyed the thing we are trying to define.

Anyway, Papretis, I hope you can resolve your dilemma because I will certainly miss you if you feel you have to let astrology go for the sake of balance in your life. Even without the religious dilemma, we sometimes have to put this subject aside; and if the motivation wanes, it is not possible to try to manufacture the interest. If you have to try to find a reason to continue your study, then there is no reason, because the beautiful, appealing aspect of it must have stopped seeming beautiful and appealing, and for some reason, there is a need to withdraw and make a change.

(If it were possible to manufacture the interest, I?d advise you to be like Ramesey, purging yourself every now and again with a rant on this site against the trashy horary astrologers like me )

Deb

Yesterday I had a look in the Tetrabiblos to see what Ptolemy had in mind. In I.1 and I.2 and especially I.3 he tells what astrology is about.

Tetrabiblos wrote:The remaining part of our project would be to inquire briefly as to its usefulness, first distinguishing how and with what end in view we shall take the meaning of the word usefulness. For if we look to the goods of the soul, what could be more conducive to well-being, pleasure, and in general satisfaction than this kind of forecast, by which we gain full view of things human and divine? And if we look to bodily goods, such knowledge, better than anything else, would perceive what is fitting and expedient for the capabilities of each temperament.

Tetrabiblos wrote:To a general examination it would appear that those who find fault with the uselessness of prognostication have no regard for the most important matters, but only for this-that foreknowledge of events that will happen in any case is superfluous; this, too, quite unreservedly and without due discrimination. For, in the first place. we should consider that even with events that will necessarily take place their unexpectedness is very apt to cause excessive panic and delirious joy. while foreknowledge accustoms and calms the soul by experience of distant events as though they were present, and prepares it to greet with calms and steadiness whatever comes. A second reason is that we should not believe that separate events attend mankind as the result of the heavenly cause as if they had been originally ordained for each person by some irrevocable divine command and destined - to take place by necessity without the possibility of any other cause whatever interfering.

It is easy to look down upon astrology used for prediction, but one has to keep in mind that in Ptolemy's days almost everything about a global future was unknown whilst now we have some certainty about our future through the welfare state and health care, an issue unknown in those days.

To go back to the houses for a moment Abu Ali Al Khayyat says that for law and religion one should look at the third and ninth houses.You can check the passage and the footnote yourselves (chap 29) but he seems to be distinguishing obeying the commandments of your religion(3rd) from the more mystic (9th)

I was taught that there are various ways of looking at the world. There was religious thinking,scientific thinking and magical thinking. Can't remember the fourth. It may not be some great truth but at least you can choose which one you want and realise that others have made that choice too.

From Olivia:

But my point is fairly simple: If you want to approach astrology as a science, there's no reason I can think of not to. If you want to approach it as a philosophy, I can think of no reason not to.

And there is the choice ? the choice now forced upon us ? that earlier astrologers didn't have to make: Science (as we now know it) or philosophy (and let's include religion with that). Some folks came along in the late 17th and 18th centuries and rewrote it all for us. They created severe distinctions where there were none before. And we now dutifully follow along: Choice A or choice B.


And from Deb:

I don?t feel that astrology is religious. Certain aspects of it require trust and suspension of critical reasoning, but then so does the appreciation of symbolism in art and history.

It may not be specifically religious, but we should still explore the common ground between astrology and religion, seeing that they are both astrologically located in the 9th house. Our subject gave us the connection. It's up to us to discern what it's telling us.

You use the word 'trust', but isn't 'faith' also a very close fit? 'Faith' has powerful entrenched religious connotations and many of us avoid using it. It makes us uneasy and we take the long way around in order to avoid it. 'Trust' is an easier substitute. Most of us who study astrology now, especially traditional astrology, have a fair amount of education, and talk of faith really doesn't go over well with the university crowd.

To best define what astrology is, I just stick to the traditional notion of astrology being ?both a science and an art?. What?s ?an art?? I just looked the word up on dictionary.com and got:
?the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.?

You've left the uncomfortable terrain of religion and taken us to aesthetics, a branch of philosophy ? so we're back to the 9th house and the philosophy/religion/astrology connection.

You use the word 'trust', but isn't 'faith' also a very close fit? The word 'faith' has powerful entrenched religious connotations and many of us avoid using it.

I think I made that clear didn't I? (with my very next sentence):

I have a faith in astrology being able to guide people, which I relate to the idea that everything is united, but I don?t stop to question whether the idea of being guided comes from within or from without.

I wasn't trying to avoid the use of the word faith - I just knew I was going to use it in the next sentence and didn't want my writing to be so boring
I believe in my astrology. I have faith in it. It is not a religion. I don't worship anything and yet (personally speaking) I do have a sense that the whole subject, its philosophy, its history, should be treated with respect. As part of that, I suppose, I don't think it is all about personal gain or even personal growth. I'm uneasy with the idea of it being something which might give us power in ourselves, or power in our relationships. Maybe this is controversial, but I think people should have worked through a lot of those issues for themselves before they are ready to try to understand what makes the world tick.

Quote:
You use the word 'trust', but isn't 'faith' also a very close fit? The word 'faith' has powerful entrenched religious connotations and many of us avoid using it.


I think I made that clear didn't I?

Oh my. It looks like careless enthusiasm on my part. And yet ... .. Your ?faith in astrology being able to guide people? does have a safely secular sound to it ? the faith being in therapeutic benefits, just as we can have faith in our multi-vitamin pill's ability to boost our good health. We're an arm's length from any possible religious feelings here. But this is just one of those minor yet fun side points.

Kirk wrote:From Olivia:

But my point is fairly simple: If you want to approach astrology as a science, there's no reason I can think of not to. If you want to approach it as a philosophy, I can think of no reason not to.

And there is the choice ? the choice now forced upon us ? that earlier astrologers didn't have to make: Science (as we now know it) or philosophy (and let's include religion with that). Some folks came along in the late 17th and 18th centuries and rewrote it all for us. They created severe distinctions where there were none before. And we now dutifully follow along: Choice A or choice B.

Those were the terms set forth at the beginning of this thread - scientific astrology is okay, other than that, the church sees it as some kind of rival religion and is opposed to it. Fortunately those terms haven't been forced upon me. I hope they haven't been forced upon you, either.

Do you feel that only those who believe in God, or gods, or whatever should be allowed to study astrology? That it shouldn't be allowed as a secular science? Because the world does have secular sciences in it now, and whether you like it or not isn't going to make them go away.

I don't. And even back in the middle ages and before, there were those who said that it was as holy to study the works of creation as to search for God in metaphysics - there was no reason everybody needed to think the same way. I'm in agreement with that statement.

And as far as what kind of person you are, whether you know there's a god or not really doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme of things. Something that all of us who've spent any time in this world have realised, I tihnk. Nor should it be a qualifier as to whether you can study astrology.

As to the 'faith' part, that's not a concept in all languages, including the one I grew up with - there isn't a word for 'religion', either. Not all approaches to the holy are western, nor are all of them binary.

But I see no reason to forbid astrology to the religious, just the same as I see no reason astrology should be forbidden to someone on account of lack of religion. One true wayism in astrology scares me; I've seen too much of it. There are many people who hold many different beliefs about astrology and about the divine who work in astrology. Who are you or I to say that only certain beliefs and certain types of astrology are acceptable?

If it pleases you to reduce that to binary thinking, then that's you're prerogative. But it's certainly not what I meant. And I'm very, very glad I don't live in a place where religious belief of some sort is coerced, nor am I forced to see astrology in one particular light.

I don't see how someone else seeing astrology as a tool, a science, a ghost-in-the-cognitive-machine, an art, utter nonsense, or anything else threatens your views or practise of astrology.

Eddy wrote:Hi Papretis,
There is however some scientific evidence. The studies of Gauquelin were done in a scientific set-up. He used statistical studies of relationships between planets and professions like Saturn and doctors, http://www.tig12.net/spip/Michel-et-Fra ... uelin.html (the page is in French but it shows a graph derived from statistical study. He also found a relationship between Mars and sports(wo)men. Gauquelin was disputed by sceptics but later studies proved that there is some effect, http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/koll1ge.pdf (in English, by Nick Kollerstrom).

Hi Eddy,

yes, I?m familiar with the Gauquelin studies. There?re a few problems with them: one is that they are the only ones of producing real results though there are a lot of statistical studies about astrology over the last few decades. The Gauquelin study gave results only with planets in certain sectors (that should according to the traditional rules be weak, not strong!), though the Gauquelins studied a lot of other astrological factors too including signs and aspects, but they didn?t find anything in them. Michel Gauquelin had a conflicting attitude toward his own findings all the way. Most of the time Gauquelin didn't want to call his results astrology at all.

Olivia wrote:I'm neither western nor Christian, Kirk, and the point is that Papretis' practise of astrology is being impeded by church law, and if I followed his post correctly, he does not wish to leave the church or to be put under a ban of excommunication.

This is not exactly the case. Though the Orthodox Church has a negative attitude towards astrology, it?s unlikely that I would be put under a ban of excommunication would I continue practicing it. No one is coercing me to leave astrology, I don?t live in that kind of environment or culture. I have my own brains, and there are several reasons why I?m questioning the practice of astrology, of which my faith is only one.

Deb wrote:Anyway, Papretis, I hope you can resolve your dilemma because I will certainly miss you if you feel you have to let astrology go for the sake of balance in your life. Even without the religious dilemma, we sometimes have to put this subject aside; and if the motivation wanes, it is not possible to try to manufacture the interest. If you have to try to find a reason to continue your study, then there is no reason, because the beautiful, appealing aspect of it must have stopped seeming beautiful and appealing, and for some reason, there is a need to withdraw and make a change.

(If it were possible to manufacture the interest, I?d advise you to be like Ramesey, purging yourself every now and again with a rant on this site against the trashy horary astrologers like me )

This was funny . You put it very well when you wrote that there is a need to withdraw and make a change. You mentioned in an interview that there has been a period for you too when you left astrology altogether for several years, so I think you understand what I?m talking about. One of the most difficult things is that I?ve met some really wonderful people with astrology, and I?m not sure how to continue those relationships if the main bond disappears. I know from experience that it doesn?t always succeed. But Ramesey's option might seem worth considering...

Well, if your life is like mine, you can set aside astrology as much as you want, but it will turn up again when it's time.

I have found that the claims for the power of "free will" made by those who attempt to get around various religious limitations on using astrology do not hold up all that well in practice.

You mentioned in an interview that there has been a period for you too when you left astrology altogether for several years, so I think you understand what I?m talking about.

Absolutely. And I have to say that the last time I had a parting with astrology (1998/9 - 2002/3) it was, in my mind, a permanent parting of the ways. During those four years I couldn't have told you what sign the Sun was in, even if I'd thought about it (which I didn't). I enjoyed the experiences that I had in those years, which was out of contact with all astrology and all astrologers. (Some astrologers, however, never quite left me in spirit, and certain phrases from certain conversations came to mind at times when they were the perfect answer to some problem or other).

I didn't really make a plan to come back to astrology, it just happened. I don't think I'll be parting company with astrology again, but whatever you choose for yourself, just keep your faith in life itself. Or, in the words of Monty Python, and to keep Kirk happy, ""Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space, 'cos there's bugger all down here on Earth."...