lihin wrote:This is the reason why in my humble opinion there are in reality no such things as 'traditional', 'classical' or 'Vedic' astrologies. These labels are convenient for marketing and provide feelings of stability, security and identification.

Yes. Some people have an idealized mythical notion of the "the one true" Astrology of the past, and this seems to be in many cases an expression of psychological needs. Like you I feel that many seek in Astrology (or use it in such a way that) the authority of tradition provides them with "stability, security and identification". Astrological practice becomes by necessity an expression of psychological, cultural and historical paradigms that often are not recognized and are mistaken for an alleged monolithic a-historical tradition.

But I think we all share something in common: the use of the same basic mathematical devices like birth charts, the zodiac divided into 12 signs, celestial longitues, 12 houses, etc. as a way of charting human life and events. What distinguishes us as a communtity is the use of these fundamental pseudo-astronomical tools, despite the multiple ways of using and even calculating them.

Juan

Good morning,

Although it would be convenient, alas even on the matters Mr Juan has last mentioned there is no consensus amongst schools of astrology.

Some use other numbers of divisions of the zodiac than twelve, i. e. 10, 13, whilst still others use twelve or thirteen unequal constellations instead of equal signs. The Aalen school ('cosmobiology') uses no 'houses' at all but relies on the 'natural significators'. A good case has been made that Claudius Ptolemy did not include a house system in his Tetrabiblos.

Some astrological systems, ex. gr. ancient Babylonian, are based on the horizon coordinate system, others concentrate on the equatorial system. Some quite modern ones include the earth's magnetic co-ordinates as a fourth set of reference with or without the dipolar approximation.

Some schools of astrology even today purposely restrict themselves to the seven visible planets, Ascendant and Medium Coeli. Others, already in Hellenistic times, include the lunar nodes but neglect the nodes of the other bodies. Yet others (ex. gr. Michael Erlewine) include delineations for all nodes.

Even the assertion 'astrology is based on astronomy' does not always hold, questions of Chinese astrology left aside. Some authors rigorously attempt to base each type of delineation on an observable, verifiable astronomical or physical phenomenon including for example those of resonance and harmony. Others, ex. gr. in Indian astrology, include purely symbolic bases of astrological analyses.

Last but by far not least one can mention the extreme proliferation of astrological points (new planets, dwarf planets, centaurs, asteroids, etc.), sometimes including hypothetical ones, in most modern schools of astrology in contrast to the seven planets readily visible to unaided human sight.

The diverse situation is the similar with delineations of basic astrological symbols. One can for example compare Alfred Witte's delineation of the Sun to that of Dane Rudhyar.

Astrologers, so it appears, delight in making sceptics' work easy.

Best regards,

lihin

lihin wrote:twelve... 10, 13 signs, twelve or thirteen unequal constellations instead of equal signs.... no 'houses'... horizon coordinate system, equatorial system... earth's magnetic co-ordinates as a fourth set of reference... restrict to the seven visible planets, lunar nodes but neglect the nodes of the other bodies. Yet others (ex. gr. Michael Erlewine) include delineations for all nodes... to base each type of delineation on an observable, verifiable astronomical or physical phenomenon, purely symbolic bases of analyses... proliferation of astrological points (new planets, dwarf planets, centaurs, asteroids, etc.)... hypothetical...

all you are doing is listing some of the many tools available in the astrological toolbox. Some astrologers prefer some tools and discard others, some use the same tools differently, but all the tools have the same basis: celestial motions, celestial coordinates, celestial reference planes, used to model human affairs.

The proliferation of theories, methods and schools is not exclusive of Astrology, you find it in Psychology and Anthropology and can make exactly the same arguments there.

Juan

juan,

it puts the emphasis on astrology being more art then science in noticeable ways..

james_m wrote:juan, it puts the emphasis on astrology being more art then science in noticeable ways..

To me Astrology is neither science nor art but a tool or set of tools for the modelling of reality. In this sense I think it has a strong affinity with the social sciences.

Juan

hi juan
how would you categorize or define "modelling of reality" as you put it?

james_m wrote:how would you categorize or define "modelling of reality" as you put it?

Essentially, astrologers reduce any human reality to celestial coordinates, according to specific procedural and semantic rules and conventions. Thus, for instance, the discrete abstract coordinate that astrologers call "a planet" is not representing the astronomical planet, rather, the astronomical planet is reduced to an abstract coordinate which is then used to represent something else by means of conventionalized semantic attributions or symbolization.

Astrology cannot map how planetary energies affect us because these energies and their way of operating are not known. We can't make a model of what is unknown. But we can take advantage of the order of the heavens assigning to each astronomical point a specific cultural category, and use the result to model or map what we experience here on earth or inside human consciousness. A birth chart (for example) is not a map of the sky, but a map (model) of a human being.

Juan

delete

varuna2 wrote:



Are my assumptions for the basis of your position totally wrong?

Completely wrong. Juan redefines Astrology so you can forget about this:''Astrology is the study of the correlation between celestial objects and earthly events''.

It's an exercise in time wasting , it's essentially using an inkspot to explore societies and your own psychodynamics. Pointless, harmful , disingenuous ....not that dictionary defined astrology can't be accused of the same. See JUAN'S site for clarification where you will, bizarrely, bump into the usual mixture of religion and scientism nobbling against the none of this is real conception.

An analogy is the local priest delievering the sunday sermon whilst of a mindset, very common!, the idea of a Christian god is absurd but the belief in the idea may be helpful in terms of maintaining social order and giving your life a sense of teleology.

What I find quite odd is why 'Skyscript' tolerates this. I'm a hard core sceptic but if all my posts were a variation on 'The seed moment is rubbish , but.........'

varuna2 wrote:It seems like you want to classify astrology as a social science, presumably meaning in association with sociology, anthropology, and some views of psychology, as opposed to classifying astrology with biology or physics?

Close. "Has a strong affinity with", not necessarily "is". In those fields the scientific method is a failure because theories cannot achieve the standard of "proof", yet we see the development of disciplined methodologies and controls by means of which knowledge and understanding of the subject-matter is possible. Sadly, these methods are generally ignored by astrologers.

Or do you classify biology and physics or even mathematics as social sciences also? (Not that I am sure what your definition of social science is.)

No. The definition is given by the subject-matter: complex, intangible phenomena associated with human activity and production: social structure, cultural patterns, behavior and motivation, language...

Do you take your position because contemporary scientists currently know almost nothing about the laws of nature? Or is it because of a certain worldview perhaps similar to relativism and subjectivism?

Neither. I'm not sure what you mean by "my position", but I think I am just stating a simple fact: Astrology is used by astrologers to model human experience and human concerns. The belief that Astrology belongs to the field of natural science is constantly being contradicted by astrologers in their practice by the nature of the tools they use and how they use them. This situation is a fruitless theoretical dead end.

... But although biologists do not know what the mechanism is for their science, they still study biology without feeling like they need to apologize for their behavior, nor do they feel the need to become total relativists. For some reason, astrologers are the only people who are supposed to do this, to avoid being accused of superstition and burnt at the stake in the indoctrinational institutions.
Are my assumptions for the basis of your position totally wrong?

Yes.

Juan

Nixx wrote:Juan redefines Astrology so you can forget...

It would be more productive if instead of your incohesive rant you focus on explaining why what I have said here is wrong.

Juan

delete