Good for you Matt.

Jonathan is not so bad - probably the best spokesman for representation from sun-sign columnists, but the BBC know that the AA are always willing to provide press releases or make recommendations - so why aren't we seeing any quotes from representatives of the AA, APAE, APAI, Faculty, etc. Why is Dr Nick Campion, Vice President of the AA, who heads up a university department, not being quoted? This is part of the AAs remit, but the BBC seems to want to present astrology as nothing more than media entertainment.

Paul - I like it. After interpreting 12,000 charts over the last 12 years, on top of everything else, no wonder she's confused and feeling exhausted

She does a lot of media and public appearances from the looks of her about page.

As for the American Association of Professional Psychics: http://certifiedpsychics.com/

But who's going to google that?

I always try to avoid the term 'certified' in reference to astrological qualifications. In Britain it has an additional meaning, which is not worth bragging about.

"Unfortunately in the example I saw on that forum, the poster was a professional astrologer who signed her post as "I'm Jane Bloggs of mywebsite.com" ... Anyway the point I'm making is that this poster was clearly a professional astrologer, their website is set up to demonstrate her role as a professional astrologer and says that she is a Certified Member of the American Association of Professional Psychics.
This is clearly not the remark of a hobbyist."

Professional in the sense of 'set up in business' but that means nothing. Cowboys are cowboys. Certainly not professional in the same way as a professor of astronomy.

Member of the Association of Professional Psychics clearly doesn't give any certification in astrology, and even the BBC wouldn't think that it did.

I want to second the point about the BBC having gone to two famous astrologers rather than any professional body or representative body. It demonstrates how the BBC prioritises ratings (website hits, in this case) over representation of the field in question. They've showed their game in going to names the public would recognise rather than a professional body's spokesperson.

Dismayed though we may be, I still don't think we need to be. Astrology is being subjected to the same cultural change as are all other fields of enquiry. There is a degradation and confusion of perception of authority in every field, without exception. Astrology can't escape that, but astrologers don't have to become overreactive to it.

I was just reading some of the recently released Vettius Valens translation today and at the end of book 5 there are a couple of paragraphs that show that there's nothing new in the uninformed degrading the status of the subject by passing themselves off as more informed than they are, while the better informed don't always get their chance to have their due input. The changes in the media in the 1990s and 2000s, and the invention and widespread take-up of the web, have amplified it but they haven't brought anything new, it's just the worse side of human nature up to its old tricks again.

I maintain my points in my first post in this thread. I don't think it's a good idea to get caught up in the details of the 'fight'. I think it's more important to see and feed the strengths that have already grown in our field, and to be patient and in it for the long haul. Astrology isn't as vulnerable as we might feel, and we have more strength and influence than we feel we have.

Regards

H.

I read a few of the posts in this thread last night, and felt demoralised by some of the points being made, such as what is going on it other forums (thankfully I don't have time to read them).

Yes this whole issue is very depressing. I first picked up the story myself on my yahoo browser at the weekend where an article had been written by the fashion and lifestyle writer on the story. That just about sums up the status of astrology in contemporary society. Someone qualified to write recipes one week is felt competent enough to write on superstitious mumbo jumbo like astrology. I immediately, thought of responding but when I read the response page I realised the utter futility. There were already nearly 2000 replies with most people either commenting that they still believed in their sun sign or that it just confirmed it was all nonsense. There are several issues underlying the whirlwind success of this story.

Firstly, the avaracious nature of modern media on the internet which is always looking for populist stories. The arguments are not new. In particular the idea of the 'wrong sign' and the 'lost' 13th sign has been used as a trojan horse argument by sceptics for years. There are the committed sceptics who take a delight in making astrology look even more contradictory than it already is. Religious fundamentalists also find common cause in consigning astrology to the realms of the occult with the witch of Endor.

Lastly though and perhaps most damaging are the astrologers themselves. Its not just an issue of astrologers ignorant of the astronomy and or our basic principles although that is a worrying factor.

To me this issue is more fundamental than that. It also includes perfectly competent astrologers willing to prostitute the art of astrology in sun sign astrology. Ok I have said it! What I have noticed in post after post in response to this story in public forums is that most people haven't got beyond sun sign astrology in their awareness. Moreover, most assume the signs are the constellations. Knowledge of the tropical zodiac is almost non-existent outside the astrological community.

There are many reasons for such ignorance of astrology. However, I think a major factor is that there are hoards of professional astrologers happy to pander to it. I know many here will leap to the defence of sun sign astrologers. Yes, many excellent astrologers have written columns. Yes, I know astrologers are perpetually hard up trying to make a living from consultations. Yes, it pays the bills. Yes, it is very popular and meeting a demand. Yes, sun sign astrologers often do proper consultations too.

However, as long as astrologers operate on this entertainment/show business level we can hardly expect to be taken seriously. In fact why should we be? The general view of astrology as light nonsense is fed directly by sun sign astrology. So if I was setting basic professional standards for a real astrologer I would say the basic first requirement would be to abstain from all involvement in sun sign astrology. Of course the gravy train will always be too tempting for many. However, at least it would establish a line between astrology and the entertainment business.

Naturally, the sceptics and religious fundamentalists will still attack the principles of astrology. On some points there are general issues of difference or confusion within the astrological community itself that make this inevitable ie differing zodiacs, house systems, twins, group tragedies etc. Still at least we will be able to operate from a more serious level of discourse.

I accept as Olivia has pointed out there has always been a populist level of astrology. Equally Kim Farnell's book Flirting with the Zodiac demonstrates the power of astrological almanacks and other popular forms of astrology goes back to classical times. Nevertheless, I think if a contemporary astrologer wants to be seen as more than a naive and superstitious fool they have to take a stand against populist sun sign astrology. In that respect expecting people like Jonathan Cainer to come to the rescue is a bit like asking an alcoholic to run a rehab centre.

This point on sun sign astrology may seem unrelated to the contemporary fuss over Ophiuchus as the 13th sign and the precession of the equinoxes but I think it is actually at the root of it. Asking to be taken seriously and personally endorsing sun sign astrology is hypocritical and is a classic case of wanting to have your cake and being able to eat it too.

Mark

Olivia wrote:She does a lot of media and public appearances from the looks of her about page.

As for the American Association of Professional Psychics: http://certifiedpsychics.com/

But who's going to google that?

That's actually a copy-cat website, I was interested in what the requirements were to become accredited by the Amercian Association of Professional Psychics. Is there an arduous examination process for example?
http://www.americanassociationofpsychic ... oin_Us.php

Actually no. It's by invite only. So you don't even have to open a book.
The page lists a number of things you can't do, such as be a hotline only psychic. Nowhere, however, does it say that you have to actually be psychic nor know what you're doing or study the subject you claim to be professional of. So you don't have to know anything about the subject, nor study it, you just have to accept an invite. Guess it really is about who you know rather than what you know.

Maybe Deb could collaborate with Kellogg's and release an astrology cert when you buy 6 boxes of Crunchy Nut Cornflakes? In a couple of months I could have certification too!!
*crosses fingers*


edit:

I always try to avoid the term 'certified' in reference to astrological qualifications. In Britain it has an additional meaning, which is not worth bragging about.

LOL

I agree Mark, the whole thing is reinforcing the idea of Sun Signs. So many people on the web forums I've read are heaving sighs of relief that 'I'm still a Gemini, thank god for that! Thank you astrologer!' and that's the end of the matter for them.

But it's not surprising because the original attack was an attack not on birth charts etc but on 'star sign'/horoscope columns.

So the defence is, wittingly or unwittingly, of Sun Signs and the columns that rely on them.

The whole thing is a waste of energy, hence my original post that it's better to not be deflected from directing our energy into the continued education of ourselves, our clients, genuinely interested parties, and only occasionally the media and those determined that they already know what astrology is and so have closed ears.

IMO there's nothing wrong with a bit of fire-fighting here and there but it has to be strategic otherwise we'll (a) exhaust ourselves and (b) dance to the media's and/or astronomers' tunes. Long term prevention is better than short term cures. When it comes to astrology's status, we're facing society's chronic misperceptions of itself, mirrored through astrology, not really acute flare-ups of prejudice and ignorance (wilful or otherwise).

H.

handn wrote:I agree Mark, the whole thing is reinforcing the idea of Sun Signs. So many people on the web forums I've read are heaving sighs of relief that 'I'm still a Gemini, thank god for that! Thank you astrologer!' and that's the end of the matter for them.H.

Some comments I loved were those where someone had a tattoo of the zodiac symbol of their sun sign, faced with the possibility that their sign was actually wrong. Of course it wasn't, but I love what must have gone through their heads when they heard about it first.

Thanks Deb, I'm with you about the tropical intended zodiac at the Babylonians. With the symmetry of the planetary exaltation signs in mind I even think that this would suit most with a tropical zodiac in which the equinox is at 15? Aries. So the tropical astrologers perhaps should move the zodiac 15? backwards I believe. Somewhat related to your remark on the antiscia in here, http://www.skyscript.co.uk/antiscia.html .

Deb wrote:I think the Southern hemisphere inversion of seasonal symbolism is very philosophically problematic. The only defensive principle we have is that the original view remains pertinent for the greater part of the Earth's inhabitable regions, so we can use it as the most pertinent Earth-centred influence. I know that is probably not satisfactory for many, but at the moment it seems to be the only justifiable argument on the table.

A while ago I speculated on a possible origin of the exaltations related to the Babylonian meaning of the planets in an older thread but I can't relate to any sources to support my speculations. According to this the exaltations relate to a cultural/symbolical meaning rather than Ptolemy's climatological explanation. However if the Babylonians had lived on the Southern hemisphere, I believe we would have had the exaltations on the other side of the zodiac. Same would apply for the rulers. (I think these are of (the Greeks in) Egypt). I'm afraid the defense wouldn't hold for long. Technically (astronomically) there's no difference between the northern and southern half of the zodiac.

After interpreting 12,000 charts over the last 12 years, on top of everything else, no wonder she's confused and feeling exhausted

Perhaps she should just use her hand, like the woman M.E. Jones told about (see Tom's post monday).

Paul wrote:Some comments I loved were those where someone had a tattoo of the zodiac symbol of their sun sign, faced with the possibility that their sign was actually wrong. Of course it wasn't, but I love what must have gone through their heads when they heard about it first.

Probably something like..."I've been nailed."

I haven't tracked down the studies, but score one for us in a backhanded manner - though the title of the article assures us that it is not astrology - but the season of your birth can affect your temperament, or so neuroscientists are finding:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/201011 ... _sys.shtml

This one's from December of last year, so still quite recent. Don't remember it being splashed all over the news the way the 13th sign is, though.

Deb wrote: I think the Southern hemisphere inversion of seasonal symbolism is very philosophically problematic. The only defensive principle we have is that the original view remains pertinent for the greater part of the Earth's inhabitable regions, so we can use it as the most pertinent Earth-centred influence. I know that is probably not satisfactory for many, but at the moment it seems to be the only justifiable argument on the table.

Hi Deb,

Wouldn't the plain geometry of it just settle the matter? Then again, I think the seasonal aspect of the tropical zodiac is only accidental, in the sense that it is not the essential part of it; the Sun's path crossing over the equator is the important thing, I think.

If you have the patience to read it, the physics presented in the "Concepts" document at http://www.levante.org/ give a pretty convincing rationale for why the signs should be defined along the ecliptic in counter-clockwise order, regardless of which of the northern or southern hemispheres the native resides in. It's a bit more "catholic" as to what the zero point can be. But there is no reason for any discontinuity between north and south.

- Ed