Coder,

But I am a bit surprised tho' that when ?. you didn't react with "Ouch - oxymoron".

I thought Deb?s post was excellent, every word. Why you would suggest I think otherwise? I have not criticized the personal language choices of any forum members, nor would I ever. I am just glad that folks post their ideas. OTH, the thread topic relates to ideas surrounding the use of the word conjunct without targeting any one individual. Perhaps you were joking. NTL, it comes across as mud slinging (and at the expense of our honored host). Mud slinging is poor sportsmanship. Besides, you are on the Imperialist (Patrician) team. Mud rights belong to the Plebes.

Back to your request for examples - Your original statement concerned my comment that conjunct was adapted as a noun. Clearly, my response was unclear if, after my last post, you still want examples. I will attempt to clarify. I used the words, ?mathematics, philosophy and logic?. It would have been more correct to say ?mathematics and philosophy (logic).? I must have had 'conjunctions on my mind' to use the conjunction ?and? instead of parentheses. In addition, I said,

Philosophy has many branches of which logic is one.

You indicated that you were familiar with the use of conjunct as a noun in logic, which is why I did not provide examples. If you still have reason for examples, I will provide them. They will be from logic (as a branch of philosophy). IOW, from philosophy (logic).

Christina

Deb wrote:

astrology itself is a loose, symbolic language

A symbolic language uses notation. Astrology uses notation. Therefore astrology is a symbolic language??? That is not (aristotelean) inference; nor any other recognized valid form of inference. It is a type of conclusion-making that has been termed "metaphorical reasoning" - although they it smells to me more of rampant metonymy than metaphor.

A symbolic language uses notation, but (for example) chemical formulae do not constitute a language by being a notation. Astrologers' common representation of the facts they deal with are a notation. Astrologers do not use this representation to think with astrologically - that suffices to distinguish astrological thinking from formal systems (e.g. axiomatic set theory). What Deb wrote is not self-contradictory - merely invitationally ambiguous about the correct reference of the word "symbol".

So my view (see my first post) that this topic is basically a non-runner, rather a surreptitious plea for a higher standard of astrological writing. Which, demonstrably, cannot be simply stated for want of someone somewhere taking it as a politcally incorrect ad hominen critique of their Weltanschauung. Or, vide PC Policeperson, of someone else's.

Coder, I was just giving a casual opinion in an informal manner. I think most members understood my point even without the three paragraph analysis. Your post is a demonstration of how we lose the ability to communicate effectively when we try to get too clever about it.

Christina, I like the cut of your jib. Promise not to use phrases like "invitationally ambiguous" and I will officially join your unwashed mob.

Hi Deb,

You have my word ? especially since I am not clever enough to put words like "invitationally ambiguous" together. I hope an occasional oxy? is acceptable, such as borrowing ?eloquent silence? from the muses regards the starry night sky.

Kind Readers ? Please recall that the modern day ?unwashed? (aka plebes) are likely to possess designer soap, thrice filtered water and college educations (tho? I neither claim nor deny these for myself).

Christina

... and I will officially join your unwashed mob.

I always detected a hint of something unclean around here ? but nothing like that which ?smells to me more of rampant metonymy than metaphor?. That would be an outright stench, I?m sure.

Hi Deb,

I was ?not connected? for a few days and have only now read your post. You write:

Unfortunately, there does seem to be an inherent conflict between taking the 3D view and that which is centred upon the ecliptic/zodiac divisions.

I tried to understand what kind of ?inherent conflict? you mean, but couldn?t figure it out. Checking Kepler?s Harmonicae Mundi, book IV again didn?t help me either.

I can see such an inherent conflict between the tropical and the sidereal zodiac - they are both competing in the same 2-dimensional reference plane.

But regarding a conflict ecliptic/zodiac and 3D, I can?t follow you. The ecliptical zodiac is one of the many possible 2-dimensional images of the 3D celestial sphere, with the celestial bodies projected perpendicular on it. Other possible 2D images of the 3D geocentric ?reality? being, e.g. declination, latitude, local space charts etc.

Paper (or a computer screen) is 2-dimensional, so horoscopes are 2D images. I was only pleading to use more than one 2D projection. Especially to look at the latitude to see if a conjunction is a real conjunction or just an alignment, a projected conjunction. I think a real conjunction or even an occultation is stronger in its influence. Just think of the difference between a normal full moon and a lunar eclipse.

Kind regards
Ren?

P.S. I am a big Kepler fan, too and have read all his books. Great insights!

As an english woman living in the usa [For 27 years] I used to be appalled at the lack of skills the colonials had in using 'Our 'language[incorrectly!]
I now realise that everything is changing and evolving all the time and I have also learned that having something sweet as well as savoury on my plate at the same time is not "wrong".Go with the flow.Language is only about getting an idea,feeling across -it is about COMMUNICATION and if "conjuncting" communicates the essence of this astrological information across to more people [from a wider global population]than cojoining then perhaps using "conjuncting" is the way to go.You obviously know the gramatically correct usage so perhaps you can ignore our ignorance.It is soooo awsome to have this global forum and I personally feel that sometimes it is obvious when our weird unpredictable english language can completely lose a non native speaker so perhaps it is time to make our language a little more accessable. Anyone who reads Astrology books sees and understands "conjunctions" Vive la differance!

Time has passed, but my discomfort at hearing that two planets are conjuncting is just as acute as ever.

For those who weren't around back then:

On page 2 Deb wrote: "It?s amazing how this poll has hovered over the balance."

At the beginning 'No' was a bit ahead. As more votes came in the two were neck and neck (Why, I do believe they conjoined! ). 'Yes' would just squeak past and then 'No' would overtake it. Slowly, gradually, 'Yes' crept ahead.

Barbarians.


One of the great moments in Skyscript history took place on page 3 when Kim Farnell gave us a door and a window.

Dear me - you've actually been monitoring the progress of the votes ! That's sad Kirk. I mean, I prefer 'conjoined' and correct my students when they say 'conjuncting' etc., but, in the greater scheme of things, there is so much more to worry about. Like the fact that, historically conjoining meant joining by any aspect and not just conjuncting

Deb wrote:Dear me - you've actually been monitoring the progress of the votes ! That's sad Kirk. I mean, I prefer 'conjoined' and correct my students when they say 'conjuncting' etc., but, in the greater scheme of things, there is so much more to worry about. Like the fact that, historically conjoining meant joining by any aspect and not just conjuncting

Now wait a minute! Today was the first time I've looked at this thread in years. It hasn't been ongoing. However, I probably should keep an eye on it and get in touch with the proper astrological associations if 'Yes' pulls too far ahead. We don't want to appear to the public at large as a bunch of dolts. We very well may be dolts. We just don't want it to show.

Now, we all have our grammar boo-boos. My point then and now is that it looks so . . . . . uneducated to have key terminology based on a grammatical error. We might not talk real good in our presentations but our toolbox should at least hold quality tools.

. . . in the greater scheme of things, there is so much more to worry about. Like the fact that, historically conjoining meant joining by any aspect and not just conjuncting

Oh dear. Conjunctions aren't even aspects. Is it possible to blame Ptolemy? He seems to be a popular choice for finger pointing.




Edited to correct a grammar boo-boo.