delete

Good morning,

Although concurring on most points, methinks doubtful the validity of Mr Varuna II's following text:

"Therefore, we are interested in the 1/3 of the 20 percent, or whatever the actual numbers are. How to make them aware of astrology? For this we must turn to the concept of Propaganda and proselytizing ..."

Of course one should distinguish between members of the general public who might become clients of astrologers and those interested in becoming astrologers. In both cases, however, one might recall that only what is enveloped in a seed can be developed at any later stage. Only potentials can be actualised. My limited experience has been that it is more fruitful to require people to distinctly knock at the door of their own volition rather than try to push or pull them into the 'house of astrology', once considered a key traditional science reserved for the few duly qualified.

Best regards,

lihin

In the late 1990's, the internet suddenly allowed astrologers all over the planet to communicate with one another. Sandy Rozhan's forum in the USA, and Noel Tyl's also in the USA, were thriving places. My only forum, Zarathu Astrology Forum, had participants from all over the world as late as 2006.

But since that time the internet has destroyed astrology. People have begun to rely more and more on the internet for information, to the point where they now believe that EVERYTHING can be found there. People don't realize that learning astrology off of the internet is like trying to become a professional photographer by reading popular photography magazines---can't be done.

So much of the erudite discussion on forums that still have action has disappeared. If its more than newspaper astrology, nobody wants to learn it. Bring up that you regularly use 500 asteroids in your practice and they tell you its too complicated, rather than ask how you do that so you can tell them.

While the internet was a boon at the beginning, now its dumbed it down.

Zarathu

Hi Zarathu,

Bring up that you regularly use 500 asteroids in your practice and they tell you its too complicated, rather than ask how you do that so you can tell them.

There are endless discussions but not demonstrations and if even some one demonstrates and tells something it has to be supported from Quotes from authorities specially Ptolemy (who was not even an astrologer)

I have regularly posted demonstrations and even worksheets about how to do these things. Usually no one responds, and if they do, it doesn't involve a question or a discussion. Just silence.....

I had a fella who I've known for years tell me that I couldn't use asteroids to chart vocations because it was just too complicated, but I was welcome to use his chart knowing his retirement date as an example. I posted 21 asteroids of possible retirement with their meanings, and then with a later post I only used 5 of them to show how these could be used to augment and define the day involved---his retirement.

http://noeltyl.com/discussion/index.php?topic=5163.0

I used a pseudonym of Thoreau when I was on that forum. As you can see, there was no discussion at all. In years past that would have generated serious discussion.

Not any more.

Good morning,

As has been mentioned a few times, non-astrologers usually cannot distinguish between various astrological schools and systems. However, they are often permeated and conditioned by notorious sun-sign astrology and usually already know the tropical placements of Helios in their sky-maps. To de-condition the already built-in layer of (pseudo-)astrological identifications and prejudicial assumption, i usually exclude the Sun from the initial natal chart explained to the client.

Since the Renaissance the number of astronomical and thus potentially astrological points and techniques has geometrically exploded like the population of the human pandemic. There is always, methinks, a trade-off between quantity and quality (or depth). Astrologers practising with new planets, hypothetical planets, dwarf planets, asteroids, centaurs and the like (aside from the issue of being so sure about their astrological significance so quickly after their discoveries) seldom, so it seems, apply considerations like essential and accidental honours / debilities and sect.

The human mind, even that of genii, is fortunately limited. Even the most intelligent astrologers can only simultaneously handle a small fraction of the myriad points and techniques at their disposal.

Having read the post linked in Mr Zarathu's last message here, may one observe that, for quite some years already, Makemake, like Ceres and Pluto, is a dwarf planet, no longer an asteroid? The late 20th century modern astrological paradigm of 10 planets, Pluto the last, has died. Eris, another dwarf planet, has about 30 % more mass than Pluto.

In conclusion, the currently extremely fragmented state of astrology, aggravated by its failing academic status, whose exponents cannot even agree on a zodiac, scarcely encourages public trust. Rather, it has become even easier for sceptics to poke fun at astrology.

Best regards,

lihin

PS Since i am opposed to linguistic impoverishment in any language (ex. gr. loss of the intimate form 'thou' in the English language), i duly apologise for any unmeant offence due to use of 'Sir', 'Mr' and the like. Should anyone refer to me as 'mr lihin', i should have no objections.

lihin wrote: However, they are often permeated and conditioned by notorious sun-sign astrology and usually already know the tropical placements of Helios in their sky-maps. To de-condition the already built-in layer of (pseudo-)astrological identifications and prejudicial assumption, i usually exclude the Sun from the initial natal chart explained to the client.

Can I ask why?
We might do well to keep in mind that many of those clients coming to an astrologer are first of all familiar primarily with sun sign astrology, as you say, but we should keep in mind that had they not been, they may not have come to you at all.
Also to simply ignore the sun seems a huge mistake to me personally - it is after an important body and may be of especial importance in a given chart. I would worry about this being an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Obviously this is up to you in your own astrological practice, but it seems quite severe.

Astrologers practising with new planets, hypothetical planets, dwarf planets, asteroids, centaurs and the like (aside from the issue of being so sure about their astrological significance so quickly after their discoveries) seldom, so it seems, apply considerations like essential and accidental honours / debilities and sect.

Most modern astrologers tend not to use sect whatsoever (for the simple reason that they do not know what it is) and tend to be confused on essential dignities. Obviously they tend toward using domicile dignity and playing with the exaltation dignities but not any other - again because they do not know what they are.
That said if someone wants to use asteroids or dwarf planets and not use any dignities, well what of it? I actually think it a better thing to use a dwarf planet, asteroid, whatever else, without needing to force it into a scheme of dignities where it is not needed.

In conclusion, the currently extremely fragmented state of astrology, aggravated by its failing academic status, whose exponents cannot even agree on a zodiac, scarcely encourages public trust. Rather, it has become even easier for sceptics to poke fun at astrology.

The reality is that astrology has always been poked fun at. Even precessional arguments have been used to poke fun at astrology since the early centuries ad. Nothing much has changed there. We always had the atheistic-materialists poking fun and critiquing astrology.

PS Since i am opposed to linguistic impoverishment in any language (ex. gr. loss of the intimate form 'thou' in the English language), i duly apologise for any unmeant offence due to use of 'Sir', 'Mr' and the like. Should anyone refer to me as 'mr lihin', i should have no objections.

I don't think anyone was offended but it would be untrue to confuse informality with impoverishment of a language in my opinion.

Hello,

I have some insight to East-European reality.
There is a still growing interest in Eastern Europe in astrology (but also everything New Age and "spirituality", whatever it could mean).
I understand that it has reasons rooted in the cultural and the (ex-) political system and I do not want to discuss them here, but still I can see it is impossible to generalise as to what happens in the astrology communities there, if there are any.
The newer generations in Eastern Europe are accostumed to have access and gain information through the internet. Relating to astrology (and being interested in studying it), it can mean searching for gratuitous information (yes, many thanks to Skyscript in this field!), buying books or even online courses, but I can see that "communities" meant as clubs or anyway people interested in the same subject and wanting to discuss it do not form very often.
About buying books and courses I can also add that among the many (maybe the majority) interested in astrology just cannot afford to buy them, really not because wanting everything for free by "vice" but because living in realities where "100" for them is like "1000" for a Western-European citizen.
There is a smaller matter, the age-relating question: "new" astrologers are not necessary also "young", eg. because they did not have access to astrology when they were young (even if interested, somehow).

Iris

Firstly, thank you for all your responses.

I?ll attempt to draw together what is being said and would welcome others views.

Astrologers in this country used to meet in local groups; this has now evolved into local groups and internet forums. There appears to be a level of acceptance of this remote internet interaction and a reducing appetite for face to face discussions with other astrologers. If so, should this be seen as a problem? The responses about Eastern Europe are fascinating and it will be interesting to see how astrology develops in this part of the world.

What are we saying about the quality of different astrologers? Don?t astrologers have an ability to present their craft to the public in a way which differentiates themselves from other astrologers? What does this say about astrology?

I agree on the points about the presidential election presentation.

Whatever the percentages of the population are considered appropriate, this still leads to the conclusion that there is a very large market for astrology. Are astrologers failing to create awareness and a shortfall in how it presents itself? Are astrologers bothered?

If astrology is seeking ways of achieving propaganda goals, are astrologers then seeking solutions to a defined issue?

Whether astrology thinks there are issues that require a solution still doesn?t seem to have a consensus on the Forum.

Interesting view that the Internet dumbs down; it would also appear to be the only avenue which opens the door to those taking the first tentative steps into this world, albeit not necessarily on this forum.

Do astrologers have anything to say to the world at large or are they content to help clients, talk amongst each other and avoid fun being poked at them?