jill elinore wrote:Traditional astrology is like a religion in the way it instructs and modern astrology is like a new-age religion. I cant deal with either.

I don't think traditional astrology is like a religion. It's more like a well honed tool. A bit of a swiss army knife. It's practical and deals with practical issues for the most part.
In what way do you see it as being like a religion?

Traditional astrology for me has so many ifs and ands and there is always something contrary to say to make rules fit (or unfit). Too much mitigation is not how I see the creator would have created the universe. I see traditional astrology as devising ways to cover its own bottom (excuse my French), to cover every eventuality, mainly to keep the king or eminent one happy

Obviously there were cases where the king/emperor would (and did) execute you for being wrong.
But think of how many court astrologers there were. Now think of how many were executed - surely that there was so few might indicate that some of their methods worked.
In reality traditional astrology does not have many conditional statements, rather they have some pretty basic simple ones and then because a chart is more complex than the sum of its parts, the end result can often be some to-ing and fro-ing. Psychological/modern astrology is the same and in places even more so. When modern astrology gets it wrong the tendancy can often be to make the chart more complex - add in another TNO, suddenly notice the mid point that makes it all fit, decide to extend your orbs etc. Nothing wrong with that. But when traditional astrologers tend to get it wrong, I notice that they simplify rather than complicate, they subtract, rather than add.

golmagi wrote: That's a really interesting point. I never thought about it this way. I guess having been brought up in the 'scientific method' paradigm, it was just to wonder about how it works first. But I completely agree, there are many things in this world that are simply beyond our comprehension. The question is whether we can learn to take advantage despite we don't really understand it:)

Thanks for the warm welcome guys! All your comments really gave me a lot to think

I think we all are. I think part of what makes us drawn to astrology is a fundamental curiosity about how the world works and how people work and what makes them tick. Many engineer type mentalities or psychology type mentalities tend to be drawn to astrology for exactly that reason.
We'd all love to know of course, we'd all love to have 'the answer' but just as science doesn't yet have its theory of everything, neither do astrologers. A good example of how Abraham Ortelius proposed continental drift and was a laughing stock because he could not propose any scientifically sound theory of how or why it operated. It took 400 years for him to be vindicated and a theory found.
Science can be like that, despite observing the effect, unless a theory can explain it, the tendency can be to dismiss it.

Better that we just learn to use it and use it well. I liken it to microwaves. I don't truly know the exact details of how electromagnetic wave propogation works, but I sure as hell know how to use a microwave to heat up my dinner.
Similarly I don't really know how astrology works (maybe, like with continental drift, it will be explained in the future) but I do know how to use it and I'm learning more all the time to help use it with more efficacy.

Paul, a lot of astrologers were executed. Unfortunately, I dont have the stats. But I have watched I Claudius!

When I refer to religion, I mean the worldview that the themes of both astrology of today and antiquity are based on. Too many assumptions about our journey, what we are here for, what we are meant to achieve, too many arbitrary esoteric notions. Too many rules for life basically. Astrologers also have this horrible way of thinking that they have the key to the truth and I dont like it! This is separate to the way I feel about all the ifs and buts and mitigating circumstances. I see the often non-sensical rules to completely distract and it all looks too man-made for my liking.

jill elinore wrote:Paul, a lot of astrologers were executed. Unfortunately, I dont have the stats. But I have watched I Claudius!

I didn't think that many were killed for getting it wrong. We certainly have a good few examples, but considering how many courts there have been throughout history and how many court astrologers surviving for years and year, we have to think they weren't getting it wrong all the time. A lot of the time it was political motivation anyway.

When I refer to religion, I mean the worldview that the themes of both astrology of today and antiquity are based on. Too many assumptions about our journey, what we are here for, what we are meant to achieve, too many arbitrary esoteric notions. Too many rules for life basically. Astrologers also have this horrible way of thinking that they have the key to the truth and I dont like it!

I don't think I'm getting it. I don't see how religion relates to traditional astrology. I think classical astrology was almost more like a science. Now of course science and religion, and indeed astrology, can be quite dogmatic. Perhaps that's what you meant?

This is separate to the way I feel about all the ifs and buts and mitigating circumstances. I see the often non-sensical rules to completely distract and it all looks too man-made for my liking.

Which rules are non-sensical?
Which rules re not man made?

I think they're all man made, yet all of the traditional rules I'm aware of do seem to have an internally 'sound' logic behind them.

I must agree with Deb's comment... there are too many variables to ever hope that all astrologers agree on anything.

Some will look at the fact that many astrologers use different house systems, which would be "suspect" enough, except then, one can find astrologers who use an 8-fold system instead of 12. Additionally, some want to use a 12-fold system but number the houses in the clockwise direction, but keeping the same meanings of the houses. Some argue that houses shouldn't be used at all.

Some astrologers will use normal tropical solar returns. Others will argue for precession. Some (myself included) would put forth that both are valid and just reveal different perspectives of the whole.

Some will say that the outer planets aren't needed in order to do astrology. Others will say that, without the outers, you're only seeing a subset of the whole picture.

Some astrologers will try to prognosticate using transits alone. Others will use primary directions, secondary progressions, solar returns, lunar returns, etc. in order to do the same thing.

Thinking that astrologers could collectively agree on "everything" seems only a pipe dream.

This could all, on some level, be solved in a statistical sense, if it wasn't for the fact that much of what astrology is, is subjective in nature. Additionally, we have the issue of what each astrologer is doing with his particular used systems. In other words, ever a strong element in this is the astrologer who is using the particular system.

An immediate obvious example is in the many challenges that have come up here on SkyScript over the years. Sometimes, vastly contrary methods are used and yet several still can be seen to lead directly to the correct conclusion.

As far as IF astrology works, you will find much more ease getting to a reasonable conclusion. If you're the mathematical sort (as I am), I can certainly prove it to you using probability theory.

Peace

James

Jill, putting apart from the dangers of using any kind of divinatory system in a way that displeased rulers of ancient civilisations, can you name any astrologer executed for practicing astrology from early medieval times onwards? The one example that comes to my mind, Bruno, wasn't executed for practicing astrology but because of a series of 'heretical' pursuits.

jill elinore wrote:Thanks for clarifying that, no problem.

I thought I had read you wrong but I stand by what I said which is that for me, there is some kind of perfect astrology that may encompass many of the thoughts of the varying astrologers/types of astrology to date. I just dont think we have found it yet but if/when we do, lets hope everyone agrees on it

I am sure that it was confusing when I ended my post with

"to each, his/her own - That's my approach to Astrology."

To each, his/her own is my basic approach to life.

You can say that I am social liberal.
I don't believe in personal views infringing on the rights of others.
Just because I have a belief and practice doesn't mean that others have to do the same as me.
I have a strong belief in equality and tolerance of diversity which I believe is reflected by my very strong Eris energy.

I apply that to all areas, and so it would make sense to apply that to Astrology

One of my issues with the astrological community is not the diversity. It's the discord. It is also the condescension and patronization toward other astrologers who diverge from what they do. A lot of astrologers will talk down to other astrologers and treat them like they are ignorant stupid people who don't have a clue about astrology because they have different views and practices from them like regular astrologers talking down other astrologers for using minor planets like asteroids,centaurs,transneptunians.

They will even throw the Neptune card or point out some type of "affliction in their charts."

Stuff like that makes me not want to associate with the astrological community at times.

Atlantean wrote:I must agree with Deb's comment... there are too many variables to ever hope that all astrologers agree on anything.

Some will look at the fact that many astrologers use different house systems, which would be "suspect" enough, except then, one can find astrologers who use an 8-fold system instead of 12. Additionally, some want to use a 12-fold system but number the houses in the clockwise direction, but keeping the same meanings of the houses. Some argue that houses shouldn't be used at all.

Some astrologers will use normal tropical solar returns. Others will argue for precession. Some (myself included) would put forth that both are valid and just reveal different perspectives of the whole.

Some will say that the outer planets aren't needed in order to do astrology. Others will say that, without the outers, you're only seeing a subset of the whole picture.

Some astrologers will try to prognosticate using transits alone. Others will use primary directions, secondary progressions, solar returns, lunar returns, etc. in order to do the same thing.

Thinking that astrologers could collectively agree on "everything" seems only a pipe dream.

This could all, on some level, be solved in a statistical sense, if it wasn't for the fact that much of what astrology is, is subjective in nature. Additionally, we have the issue of what each astrologer is doing with his particular used systems. In other words, ever a strong element in this is the astrologer who is using the particular system.

An immediate obvious example is in the many challenges that have come up here on SkyScript over the years. Sometimes, vastly contrary methods are used and yet several still can be see to lead directly to the correct conclusion.

As far as IF astrology works, you will find much more ease getting to a reasonable conclusion. If you're the mathematical sort (as I am), I can certainly prove it to you using probability theory.

Peace

James

Deb wrote:Jill, putting apart from the dangers of using any kind of divinatory system in a way that displeased rulers of ancient civilisations, can you name any astrologer executed for practicing astrology from early medieval times onwards? The one example that comes to my mind, Bruno, wasn't executed for practicing astrology but because of a series of 'heretical' pursuits.

Theres an article that refers to Henry IV executing 2 astrologers - google: Its Nostra-dumbass! on mail online.

My point really was that astrologers were in fear of exile, their life, their familys standing etc etc.

Deb, sorry, did you mean executed purely for practising astrology or for getting it wrong?

Paul, the whole fatedness that was associated with astrology was a strongly religious theme.

Platos influence on Greek astrology is the foundation of the religious world view that was adopted, wasnt it?

Do you actually want me to find you examples of what I consider non-sensical? Yes, astrology is a man-made structure but the excrutiating details of strictures and aphorisms, I find to be just silly and arbitrary. Do you want examples of these too?

jill elinore wrote:Paul, the whole fatedness that was associated with astrology was a strongly religious theme.

Platos influence on Greek astrology is the foundation of the religious world view that was adopted, wasnt it?

Do you actually want me to find you examples of what I consider non-sensical? Yes, astrology is a man-made structure but the excrutiating details of strictures and aphorisms, I find to be just silly and arbitrary. Do you want examples of these too?

Jill

Sorry, I'm just not following what you had in mind. I guess you mean the aphorisms, I thought you mean the rules of astrology - I see these as meaning different things, but perhaps that's an assumption on my part and we got our wires crossed here.

As for fatedness - one needs only tour some of the modern astrology forums to see examples of the same fatedness that traditional astrology is accused of. Also one wonders what the point of all this focus on forecasting if there was nothing someone could do about it anyway. In reality I think there were different greek schools of thought regarding fatedness and free will much like there is today.