Sorry, I had been adding something at the same time as your post
Tom. The library is closing now, I hope to join again soon.

I believe something like this was tried before, but a time wasn't elected to start it.

Andrew, your work being ignored verges on the criminal, it really does.

But - trying to be pragmatic here - is there some way to start some kind of astrological research institute - one that gives grants for studying things like earthquake predictions, and other things that we, theoretically, at least, should be able to do?

Again, I read of something like this once before, but it was stated that no time was elected for it.

Do we have any financial astrology wizards here? Because I don't think that this is going to come through by way of normal government funding, there's no longer a patronage system, and even most astrologers today proudly proclaim that ASTROLOGY ABSOLUTELY CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE! for their motto. Ugh.

All I can think of at the moment. Anyone else got any ideas?

Olivia wrote:...even most astrologers today proudly proclaim that ASTROLOGY ABSOLUTELY CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE!

As astrologers we can predict the future - occasionally and sometimes only. In my opinion it is equally important that we create models for the future, try to express them in an intelligent language and weigh up the options. From this point we may contribute to discerning what might be the most favourable course of action for the future. As astrologers we may provide food for reasoning and thought.

As an astrologer I also enjoy to simply spend time with my eyes open, trying to track down phenomena that expresses the astrological language. In other settings I like to stick my head into the dark simply to see whether there may be disclosed some sort of sense or fashion. More often than not, there are more questions than answers, and that is the way it is supposed to be. It does not mean that astrology does not work or have any meaning.

Tom wrote:That's not the point. No one said science gets everything wrong. The point is that their worldview gets skewed by their falling in love with themselves, and they become borderline violent when someone challenges it. Try to disagree with Darwinism for example. Try to question it. If they believed their own PR, they would welcome intelligent discourse. Instead they try to bury it. If they are wrong about anything, we won't know it until the edifice crumbles as all ramshackle edifices do. They still hang on to their beliefs even after it has crumbled. The ongoing exposure of the global warming hoax hasn't changed many scientists' minds at all. They remain in denial. This is not a good example to set, if their goal is to tell the rest of us how to think and live. That they mange to do something right once in a while is less comforting to me than it is to others.

Tom this also sounds just like many astrologers that I have met over the decades in astrology societies.

If I question that astrology has problems that some of it could be delusion the outcry has all of the vehemence you describe above.

One example was the common belief that when Mercury is retrograde there are more than average problems with transport and communications. After several years of documenting events both personally and in the media I found this to be untrue.

I suggested that when Mercury is retrograde we tend to cherry pick and see things going wrong, and when Mercury is direct we ignore everything that goes wrong.

I guess that was a mistake. I was given suspicious looks and admonished.

I did suggest that Mercury retrograde might still mean something subjectively - but no they would not have it.

Many astrologers are just like anyone else who is convinced of their "rightness". They tolerate no dissenters. Questioning astrology in this way is tantamount to heresy and can get you black-listed.

By contrast I have found many scientists that I work with are less hostile than you indicate. In fact I find many of them would possibly be open to something like astrology but would be certainly put off by some of the hard line astrologers that I have encountered.

Martin

Fact is that dogmatism and emotional investment in beliefs and belief systems infect almost all those fields of human endeavor which cannot be reduced to pure mechanics.

Then there is the matter of finding "TRUTH" vs applying models which "work" in producing results on a practical, "blue collar" level. The philosopher, metaphysician and scientist seek "TRUTH"; others seek reliable practical results and will apply various models (organons) in order to obtain such results, regardless of the (absolute) "TRUTH" or (actual) absurdity of the model (organon) they use to obtain those practical results. Problems begin when dogmatism and emotional investment in a belief of the "TRUTH" of the working model occurs, or when the totally erroneous concepts of "it works therefore it must be true" OR "for something to work it has to be true" enter the mind. Many undertakings "work" (produce results, often consistent results) for reasons which are actually very different than the reasons the person doing the undertaking believes.

Many astrologers are just like anyone else who is convinced of their "rightness". They tolerate no dissenters. Questioning astrology in this way is tantamount to heresy and can get you black-listed.

I agree and I think this has more to do with human nature than it does with any particular field. Thomas Jefferson once said "Error of opinion can be tolerated as long as freedom is allowed to combat it," or something like that. The freedom part is where we seem to get hung up.

Another phenomenon I've been noticing is the similarities between "Science" and the medieval church. In fact a case can be made that the medieval church was more tolerant than contemporary science - however the penalties for pushing things too far were a bit harsher in the middle ages. The global warming fiasco makes this case perfectly. We were told over and over again how many scientists bought into this and that the consensus sealed the deal. Consensus is the antithesis of real science, not to mention the overwhelming number of scientists that we now know didn't buy into man made global warming in the first place. There was once a consensus that germ theory was nonsense, not to mention the consensus of truly great minds that the Sun revolved around the earth. But there was money and prestige for scientists and politicians who knew how to manipulate this just right. East Anglia's e-mails are Richard Nixon's tapes.

Astrology, being made up of humans is no different, but the stakes are a lot smaller. A couple of years back we all dumped on Glenn Perry for his dumping on traditional astrology. Perhaps our behavior in this matter (mine included) was less than gracious. His was idiotic. He did everything but call us heretics. Yet those of us who have become enthralled with traditional astrology have been guilty of similar acts ourselves. OK so we're human, now what? This is the freedom part of Jefferson's observation. You and I may say or think and argue as we wish, and if we are a bit intolerant of one another, that doesn't matter as long as we have the freedom to pursue our beliefs. The truth will win out.

That's nice in theory, but in practice, the truth often needs money and other resources to win out and when two sides are competing for the same limited amount of money, it is somewhat natural to do what one can to eliminate the competition then dig in, if enough competition says "you're wrong." But we should never eliminate the freedom and we should combat the injustice. This is precisely the opposite of the global warming hoaxers. Once they started rigging some data and destroying other data they as much as admitted they knew they were wrong, but for money and power they kept it up. And they are scientists - the new priestly caste.

Astrology has a tough road to travel in the legitimacy game. We have tons of information about the practice of our art, but we lack organization because of what is mentioned above. People attracted to positions of leadership in astrology and I'm sure elsewhere, are less interested in promoting our art than they are in telling other people what to do. We aren't going to get anywhere that way.

Tom

Possibly slightly OT, but owing to The Eye Infection That Won't Stop, I'm pretty much confined to reading things I can crank up the font on - I can't use my books right now.

Isn't global warming, or at least hotter temperatures (without the ring of 'global warming') something that happens during the Great Conjunction cycles that take place in air? I may be imagining it, but I could've sworn I've read that in more than one place.

Isn't global warming, or at least hotter temperatures (without the ring of 'global warming') something that happens during the Great Conjunction cycles that take place in air?

I've never read that, but I like it. FYI when I refer to the global warming hoax, I'm referring to the idea man made global warming. The earth may well be warming, but that's what happens during cycles, it gets warmer then colder then warmer then colder and so on. It's natural.

I agree with Martin Lewicki and I think that scientists are more tolerant when there is proof for a new theory. Most scientists will accept it if the predecessors' ideas are proven wrong. It took about two centuries for the heliocentric worldview to be accepted by almost all scientists. The restraining influence against heliocentrism were mainly religious so I find it a bit unfortunate to compare science with the medieval church. However I agree with Tom to a certain extent about the global warming being also a natural cycle matter, but rather than science this is rather politics. While there is a human factor in pollution etc, I'm also afraid that 'green politics' may be used as an excuse to raise higher taxes. Most science is still independant and I hope that in the democratic world enough money will be invested in the sciences. Scientists/universities that need money from companies might be less independent.

Astrology appears independent because it is now in the margin of society. But imagine that till some four centuries ago horary was used to find a thief and that major political decisions were made with the help of astrology. Whether the astrologers were right or wrong in these cases is less important than the impact their statements could have on society.

Why not fold the works of Tesla and Reich into the mix, along with the purported capabilities of HAARP?

It's sure to get a lot stickier and harder to stir.

To many pinches of Pluto?