In other words,

I don't see astrology as a part of the occult umbrella but instead as a bright natural science as Einstein considered it even before Gauquelin's rock-solid scientific evidence of its fundamentals.

A modern and precise definition of Astrology is needed in today's world.

To me, about the forty per cent of classical astrological technique can be discarded for modern occidental astrological practice and left it as a part of the rich history of astrology, just in the same way as the practice of bleeding is part of the rich history of medicine.

Everybody involved in astrology should have some basic knowledge of astronomy and physics so that they can stop spreading misinformation about the mechanism of astrology -ie. planetary influences, that even explained metaphorically, it hurts the understanding of astrology.

Basically what is needed is more serious and professional training along with a more realistic and modern way to portray the whole issue by institutions and associations of astrologers world-wide.

I can't say that "I am an astrologer" today in the year 2010 in Europe because I am regarded as a fool or as a witch. This needs to change.

Sonia

soniah wrote:I don't see astrology as a part of the occult umbrella but instead as a bright natural science as Einstein considered it even before Gauquelin's rock-solid scientific evidence of its fundamentals. - Sonia

Soniah, what are --in your vision-- these fundamentals of which you think there is such rock-solid scientific evidence?

If you take the time to explain what these fundamentals of astrology as a natural science are, I would like to confront them with what astrologers actually do in practice.

The idea is that for a definition or theory of Astrology to be of practical value, it should account for what astrologers do, or have been doing throughout history.

In other words, instead of assuming that astrology is a natural science, why don't we examine first if what astrologers do is natural science?

You have said that 40% of current astrological practices should be discarded. Should they be discarded because they are not based on natural science or because they don't work? And what if they work even though they are not natural science?

For example: one of the simplest and most used techniques today is transits to a radix chart. The unidimensional logitude position of a planet in the sky at any specific time is plotted against the unidimensional position that another or the same planet had a log time ago in the past at the exact time represented in the radix chart. This frozen chart position is a mathematical abstraction and does not represent anything real or existing in the world of nature.

Furthermore, this abstract frozen point in the past is assumed to be a specific person or aspect in the life of a person. And the so-called "transit" is interpreted by means of an elaborated pre-established set of arbitrary and conventional meanings and rules (house and sign meanings, aspect, planetary symbolism, etc.). All this time, the actual relationship of the real person with the transiting planet in the sky is being utterly ignored, it is never considered.

My question is: should we discard transits too? should we discard the use of charts? If not, in what way do you think the calculation and interpretation of a simple transit to a birth chart can be considered natural science?

Juan

In my opinion, astrology is best understood as a celestial mirror, with the movements of the heavens presenting a mythological drama in which we see our lives reflected.

The existent rock-solid scientific evidence that supports this phenomena is perfectly coherent with what astrologers do in their practice, as they are studying and analyzing these astrological correlations.

I don't see where is the contradiction here...

Regarding old techniques... Did bleeding used to work in Medicine? If not, then it means that Medicine it never was a science?

Ok, bye for now,

Sonia

soniah wrote:In my opinion, astrology is best understood as a celestial mirror, with the movements of the heavens presenting a mythological drama in which we see our lives reflected.
The existent rock-solid scientific evidence that supports this phenomena is perfectly coherent with what astrologers do in their practice, as they are studying and analyzing these astrological correlations.
I don't see where is the contradiction here...

That's because you are talking of an idea only, an idealized vision. When one examines what astrologers do, it becomes evident that it can't be justified, it is quite incoherent with astrological practice.

You keep mentioning the rock-solid evidence of astrological phenomena. I don't see it in Gauquelin's books. Can you give at least one example? And what has this idea of the celestial mirror and mythological drama in the heavens to do with natural science? Can you explain?

Astrologers only seldom (e.g. some schools of mundane astrology and astrometeorology) work with the actual celestial events and motions, what they do mostly (since the invention of Greek horoscopics) is calculate events in a chart. When astrologers work with charts, they are no longer dealing with "the movements of the heavens", but with the analogically manipulated and physically impossible movements in these charts.

Transits, progressions, and directions do not represent the movement of the heavens, they are a mathematical manipulation of celestial motions by means of analogy and symmetries that violate the laws of physics: neither corresponds to something actually happening in the sky at the moment to which they refer, they can never be "synchronistic" with respect to the world of nature.

The list of examples is long, so I offered a specific example in my last post, that of transits to a birth chart, to show that a transit is not something that is happening in the sky or in nature, and therefore has nothing to do with natural science. More details were explained here:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2711

Regarding old techniques... Did bleeding used to work in Medicine? If not, then it means that Medicine it never was a science? Ok, bye for now, Sonia

I still would like an answer: that 40% of astrological practices has to go because it is not natural science or because it doesn't work? And what if it works and it is not natural science?

Juan

soniah wrote:The existent rock-solid scientific evidence that supports this phenomena is perfectly coherent with what astrologers do in their practice, as they are studying and analyzing these astrological correlations. Sonia

I will assume that by "these astrological correlations" you mean --to use your words-- the correlations between the movements of the heavens and our lives. In another post you also talked of synchronicity.

But neither transits, progressions or directions are "movements of the heavens" that are based on synchronicity with nature or in "real time". They are all referred to an artificially frozen moment of time in the past (the chart), so astrologers working with birth charts never study and analyze correlations between actual motions in the heavens and our lives.

In the case of directions and progressions, what is happening in the heavens at one specific point of time in our lives is utterly and completely ignored, and instead we use an artificial symbolic motion of the birth chart that is related to the physics of the heavens only through analogy or symetry, and which breaks the laws of physics.

In the case of transits the actual celestial motions are NEVER referred directly to us as real human beings on earth, but to an abstraction, a chart which does not exist in nature. A transit is not an event that happens or can happen in the sky or in nature, it is an artificial mathematical construct built on the basis on celestial motions but which is not natural itself, it can happen only in the human imagination.

There is no technique or technology known to man today that can "study and analyze" the correlations between celestial motions and our lives directly. What we have is astrological charts which are cultural and mathematical constructs and are used AS IF they were us thanks to a thinking based on analogy or morphological symetry, not on any known scientific principle of natural science.

The only time one can speak of actual synchronicity with nature in astrology is at the time for which a chart has been made. The MOMENT of the birth chart synchronistically mirrors what is happening in the sky when someone is born. But an astrological chart and the moment for which it is made are different concepts.

Astrological charts are highly elaborate and artificial structures made of mathematical and geometrical abstractions, and they are interpreted on the basis of an apriori classification system where each abstract category of the chart has a speficic cultural and conventionally established meaning. These meanings are the result of analogical and purely symbolical association, and the geometrical abstractions or categories to which these meanings are associated cannot be found in nature (e.g., 30-degree zodiacal signs, houses, rulerships, etc.).

Furthermore, the events pictured in the chart (e.g. aspects) happen between coordinate points that only seldom correspond to what can actually be observed in the sky. Even at the moment of birth itself, because the coordinate point represented in the chart is only the longitude while the latitude is ignored, a planet can appear above the horizon when it is actually below, or in exact conjunction with another planet when in the sky they may never come together.

So the 2 assumptions you and many astrologers are making, that astrology deals directly with natural science phenomena and with the direct correlation between what is happening in the sky and our lives, are false, or too complicated to really justify them. They cannot constitue the basis for a theoretical or scientific understanding of Astrology.

Juan

Juan wrote:So the 2 assumptions you and many astrologers are making, that astrology deals directly with natural science phenomena and with the direct correlation between what is happening in the sky and our lives, are false, or too complicated to really justify them. They cannot constitue the basis for a theoretical or scientific understanding of Astrology.

In other words Astrology has practically nothing to do with natural science, and astrologers NEVER study the direct correlations between celestial motions and our lives, except generically and marginally when dealing with transits without the use of charts.

What do astrologers do then?

Astrologers make use of celestial motions to build mathematical models of human life. These models are cultural artifacts that consist of geometric and semantic structures not found in the world of natural phenomena, but are characteristic of human thinking and language.

Astrologers study how our lives are correlated to these artificial or "heuristic" pseudo-astronomical models (e.g., the birth chart), but never deal with the actual, literal motions of the heavens except indirectly and only in reference to the moment for which the chart is made.

An astrological chart can represent how the celestial motions interact or relate to us only in a metaphorical way, and it is not meant to represent celestial motions per se, it represents symbolical and cultural entities such as a person, a human life, a business, a question, a country, etc.

So the correlation with which astrologers deal is never with the heavens but with the dense and rich semantic structures of their astrological models, which refer to the heavens --in the case of natal astrology-- only remotely (the time for which the chart was made) and indirectly, in a purely imaginative and metaphorical, physically impossible way.

Juan

That's great Juan, you have your ideas and I have mines.

But I think that you confuse physics with astrology.

Astrology is entirely based in Units of Time, it's completely different from your mechanical physical model of the universe.

Rock-solid scientific evidence strongly support the astrological dynamic techniques as transits or progressions, in astrology we continually work with the quality of Time's Units, is not about measurable quantity but about the quality of this Units and the comparison between them.

If you don't like to call it a natural science, I respect your opinion, but we cannot negate the fact that we are dealing with empirical science.

Everyone of us cames here to discussion from very different levels of knowledge and experience into the field, and many of us are very strongly-opiniated people as Deb said, which is good and is rich to exchange our different views as for myself I am a very open minded person.

A better astrology can be done today in practice, I wish for it.

Have a nice Sunday,

Sonia

soniah wrote:That's great Juan, you have your ideas and I have mines. But I think that you confuse physics with astrology.
Astrology is entirely based in Units of Time, it's completely different from your mechanical physical model of the universe.
Rock-solid scientific evidence strongly support the astrological dynamic techniques as transits or progressions

You don't answer any of my questions, neither address specifically any of my points, but anyway here is another attempt:

1) on the basis of what have you concluded that I have a mechanical physical model of the universe?

2) what is this "rock-solid scientific evidence" you are talking about, can you provide at least one concrete example that we may discuss?

3) what is this "rock-solid scientific evidence [that] strongly support the astrological dynamic techniques as transits or progressions"?

4) the 40% of astrological practive that you think should be discarded, is it because it is not "scientific" or because it doesn't work?

5) and what if it works and it is not "scientific"?

Juan

Juan, you are very confused with it all.

I was enough clear in my previous posts...

Also you lack a lot of information and I am sorry but I am not your teacher, this is why I insist in how important is a good training for astrologers with a modern and realistic approach of the science.

Everyone call themselves an "astrologer" today after read a few books of astrology (usually crap ones), with this so low academic level we cannot hope for much more.

Almost 90% of classical medical methods had been discarded in modern occidental medical practice, we have a modern and effective Medicine today because among other things they were able to separate productive activities from those which are part of the history of Medicine but not longer useful or even counterproductive in modern practice.

Astrology should recycle in the same way if it want to have progress because as it is now practiced is a complete and total mess, regardless if ancient techniques works or not, or if they are scientific or not, this is not the issue, the issue is to put the house in order.

Many astrologers should remember also that we are in the year 2010, and not in the middle ages.

bye for now,

Sonia

soniah wrote:Juan, you are very confused with it all.
I was enough clear in my previous posts...
Also you lack a lot of information and I am sorry but I am not your teacher

I am not interested in what you think of me.

Your concept of Astrology is very common. I have explained why it has very little to do with astrological practice, a practice which contradicts what you and many others proclaim to be Astrology.

The evidence of this contradiction is what astrologers do and have been doing since the invention of Greek horoscopics, and it is there for anybody to examine it and corroborate each of my points.

If necessary I can explain or illustrate what I'm saying with more detail. If I am writing and asking questions it is because I am open to discussion, refutation, and dialogue, so that we can separate what is mere opinion from what are demonstrable facts.

I have no doubts that there will be in the future an empirical science dealing with how we interact with our extra-terrestrial environment, but this is not Astrology, and what astrologers do in practice speaks for itself.

Of what use is to maintain an idea about Astrology that we astrologers contradict all the time in our practice?

Juan

Hi Sonia,

Juan, you are very confused with it all.

So am I.

I was enough clear in my previous posts...

No you were not. You have not been clear at all.

First of all you claim there is rock solid scientific evidence for astrology, but will not explain what it is. Given that virtually all scientists and most astrologers do not believe there is such evidence, the burden is on you to explain why they are all mistaken. If it has to do with the Gauquelin results, then by your standards they provide ?rock solid evidence? for the insignificance of half of the solar system symbols used by most western astrologers ? the Sun, Mercury, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto ? which show no significant planetary effects on the aspects of human behavior tested, or evidence consistent with the ?planetary heredity? model. Apart from which, the Gauquelin experiments were not about astrology; they were about celestial mechanics, statistics and a hypothesis to do with the influence of the planets on human behavior.

By your own definition, astrology ?is best understood as a celestial mirror, with the movements of the heavens presenting a mythological drama in which we see our lives reflected.? There is nothing scientific about that, to put it mildly, and if you have rock solid evidence to support it, do let us know what it is.

Also you lack a lot of information and I am sorry but I am not your teacher, this is why I insist in how important is a good training for astrologers with a modern and realistic approach of the science.

That is one of the most arrogant and rude statements I have read for a long time. The idea that you have anything to teach Juan about astrology is laughable. He has been practicing astrology since he was a teenager, and as a full time professional since graduating from college with a BA in Geography and Anthropology a number of decades ago. His comments on the metaphysical problems which astrology brings up are some of the most astute and informed to be found anywhere.

Sometimes when you?re in a hole, it?s a good idea to stop digging. You seem comfortable with your certainties, but seem incapable of engaging in any kind of informative dialogue about them. You extol the necessity of critical thinking, but don?t seem to be able to handle critiques of your ideas. You just resort to patronizing bluster and avoid addressing the issues.

Everyone call themselves an "astrologer" today after read a few books of astrology (usually crap ones), with this so low academic level we cannot hope for much more.

If you wish to raise the level of academic discourse about astrology and show us how it is done, why not start here? Many of us have academic qualifications and experience. My comments for example are based on 10 years as a research scientist and 25 years as a full time professional astrologer. Naturally, given that background, I find your claims bizarre, because astrology is so obviously not a science to anyone who has practiced both. The differences are glaringly clear, so much so that they don't require any empirical validation.

All one has to do is look up the criteria used to judge what constitutes scientific knowledge and how it is generated to immediately be confronted with a list of reasons why astrology is not a science. If you wish to claim otherwise, whether to scientists, philosophers or astrologers, you had better have some good arguments to back them up. Pontificating from on high with solipsistic opinions does not help to change anyone?s views, and only contributes to maintaining astrology as a laughing stock for its critics.

Almost 90% of classical medical methods had been discarded in modern occidental medical practice, we have a modern and effective Medicine today because among other things they were able to separate productive activities from those which are part of the history of Medicine but not longer useful or even counterproductive in modern practice.

The same happened with astrology in the west. We now have a modern and effective astronomy because ?they? were able to separate out from older perspectives what does not fit into the modern scientific model. Out went myths, subjectivity, qualities, cosmologies, and much more. The modernization of astrology removed about 90% of the classical model, and in doing so gave birth to celestial mechanics and the beginnings of objective science. What was left was thrown into the dustbin.

Astrology should recycle in the same way if it want to have progress because as it is now practiced is a complete and total mess, regardless if ancient techniques works or not, or if they are scientific or not, this is not the issue, the issue is to put the house in order.

If you want to contribute to putting the house in order, the first thing one has to do is look at the house and its contents. Do you practice astrology yourself? If you do, just think (critically) for a minute or two about the techniques that you use and what you are trying to do. Then ask yourself some questions.

?Where do these come techniques come from, and how is it that their use leads to the illumination of meaning??

?How many of these techniques refer to anything that is objectively real about the heavens? If it turns out that virtually none of them do, should I consider this a problem??.

?What am I actually doing when I practice astrology; am I subjectively interpreting ambiguous symbols with no intrinsic meaning using a process in which the symbols are mapped onto a context, or am I objectively translating data into information as a scientist does, a process in which my role is completely neutral, detached and independent of the context. Or am I doing something else??

?What is the nature of astrological knowledge in comparison to any other kind of knowledge, what kind of understanding is generated by the application of astrology, and in what way is this related to astrology?s purpose??

?What should I make of the fact that astrology is not only diverse in cultural terms, but within each cultural form there are multiple branches that have quite different characteristics both in theory and practice, as is the case for astro-meteorology, horary astrology, and psychological astrology??

And so on.

Any astrologer who likes to engage in critical thinking will at some stage ponder questions such as these. In attempting to answer them, which is virtually impossible without actually practicing the subject, the territory they will be led into includes philosophy, the history of astrology in theory and practice, cultural anthropology, epistemology, and much, much more. This requires time and dedication, as well as an inquiring and capable mind not handicapped by certainties and the absence of doubt.

Many astrologers should remember also that we are in the year 2010, and not in the middle ages.

This is a statement straight from the mouth of someone enthralled by the concept of linear progress inherited from the 18th century western Enlightenment. In other words, the idea that progress is necessarily synonymous with improvement, and that precursor ideas which provide the foundations for modern perspectives are intrinsically inferior to modern concepts.

A corollary of this is that peoples whose world view is not equivalent to the modern perspective are unenlightened and primitive. Of course, the Enlightenment has its roots in western philosophy, and can be traced back to concepts set in motion by the Hellenistic philosophers, most notably Plato and Aristotle. The presumed birth of rational thinking in that part of the world is equivalent to the birth of western culture, and modernity is attached to it by an umbilical cord.

This notion of enlightened progress is culturally dominant, and provides the basis for a subliminal western ethnocentric bias. As far as the study of astrology as a cultural phenomenon is concerned, this manifests as a denial that the Mesopotamians practiced proper astrology, that Chinese astrology (if anyone bothers to take it seriously at all) has got it all wrong, and as for the Meso-American astrology ?well, forget it. They lived in the jungle.

Another aspect of this western ethnocentric bias is to assume that the only true and proper type of knowledge is conventional scientific knowledge. All other types of knowledge are at best of secondary value, if not worthless. Because this western ethnocentric bias naturally proliferates via normal educational means, it can become an issue for those interested in astrology, all of whom at one point went to school. It can lead one to adopt the view the view that if astrological knowledge is to be taken seriously, it has to be framed in ways that fit the paragon of knowledge, in other words that generated by science.

If such thoughts enter an astrologer?s head, it can lead to a certain amount of discomfort. After all, it is common knowledge that the planets don?t periodically move backwards in their orbits, etc. One instinctive response to this discomfort is to try and cram whatever can be crammed of astrology into the science box, but of course it won?t fit unless it?s ripped apart and turned into something else (as was the case with the efforts of Gauquelin).

Another common response is to seize upon any models from within science that provide analogous explanatory scaffolding for astrology. So during the last two or three decades astrologers have been known to assert ?The universe is a hologram ? the part contains the whole. The microcosm contains the macrocosm! Astrology is true after all!? or ?The universe is a giant fractal ? as above so below! The microcosm reflects the macrocosm! Astrology is true after all!? or draw on some other model that constitutes the latest fashion in popular science literature (without bothering to study the primary sources and the debates which they triggered).

On the other hand, an inquiring mind might possibly find their attention drawn to philosophy, and questions about the nature of knowledge and truth (epistemology) or the nature of being (ontology). They may learn about the limitations of science, it?s a priori assumptions or beliefs, and discover that it has nothing to say about the most important aspects of human experience (e.g. love, family, relationships, justice, artistic creativity, the applied imagination, and so on).

An inquiring mind may also learn that science is only able to make statements about what can be scientifically tested. This is limited to those phenomena which can be reliably and reproducibly modeled in a laboratory context, which in terms of human experience is not a lot.

They might then realize that what they do as astrologers most commonly involves engagement with unique events and unrepeatable phenomena associated with contexts such as love, family, relationships, justice and so on. They might then find some comfort in the thought that astrological knowledge may well be in a different category than scientific knowledge, and cannot be reduced to it.

It is this latter sentence which provides a hint regarding how to ?clear up the mess? that astrology is in. The challenge is both an epistemological and an ontological one that places a focus on the nature of astrological knowledge and understanding, and the nature of astrology?s being.

According to the point of view implied above, which obviously I adhere to, promoting the idea that astrology is actually a science (apart from being wrong for a list of reasons as long as my arm) is the most direct way of ensuring that astrology remains misunderstood, and that its true nature stays obscured.

I doubt if this will make any difference to the way you look at things, as you have everything so clear, certain and doubt-free in your own mind. However, your messages provide an opportunity for me to speak to others reading this thread about these kinds of issues, which are important ones. So thanks for that.

I also don?t expect anyone else to necessarily agree with me, but I do feel driven to articulate with some conviction the opinion that anyone who thinks that astrology can somehow be corralled into the science enclosure is pissing in the wind and missing the pot completely.

Bill wrote:All one has to do is look up the criteria used to judge what constitutes scientific knowledge and how it is generated to immediately be confronted with a list of reasons why astrology is not a science.

Hi, Bill, thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts, with which I agree entirely.

It seems to me that the widespread tendency to see Astrology as a science or at least comparabale to Science is a result of the assumption that Astrology deals with the direct effects of celestial motions on our lives. One can replace the word "effects" here, and say "Astrology deals with the direct correlations between celestial motions and our lives" and the picture would still be the same: implicit in both is the assumption that Astrology, like Science, is a body of accumulated knowledge about the direct interaction between the earth and the sky.

This notion is often taken for granted and goes unquestioned. But is this notion supported by the historical evidence? Is it supported by the empirical evidence provided by standard astrological practices? The answer to both questions is "No".

One great source of confusion is the inability to distinguish between the original Babylonian Astrology and the later Greek horoscopics. They represent two very different cultural and mathematical paradigms. The usual idea people have of Astrology is the one that characterized the ancient or original Babylonian Astrology: a direct interaction with observable celestial phenomena, and little attention is paid to the fact that Greek horoscopics --including modern Astrology-- pays very litte attention to actual "in situ" celestial phenomena and is based almost entirely on mathematical abstractions and analogies that could never be observed because they exist only in the human imagination.

This truth was clear to critics of Astrology such as Pico della Mirandola and Kepler (and no doubt to many others as well). It appears in the form of a contradiction between what astrologers say and what they actually do, and because of this, critics and historians often have a better grasp of what Astrology IS NOT than most astrologers.

?Where do these techniques come from, and how is it that their use leads to the illumination of meaning??

The same thing can be phrased like this: "How do those tools or techniques operate? What do they do?

We are all entitled to have our opinions, but the question about how astrological tools or techniques (e.g., birth charts, transits, aspects...) operate is not a matter of opinion. Any theory of Astrology should be based on a clear understanding of how these tools operate, of how this operation is a reflection not of natural phenomena but of the human mind, of the cognitive structure of the brain. Otherwise we will keep developing theories about Astrology that touch the reality of Astrology only marginally, or that are contradicted by this reality.

Because of this tragic contradiction between what is proclaimed by astrologers and what they actually do, this lack of clarity about the nature of the tools we use, the worst enemy of Astrology has not been Science, it has been and still is the astrologers themselves.

Juan