Juan wrote:

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

What interests me is why you do this. Is it a projection of self loathing that you once believed you were imprinted by ''cosmic forces'''...only to discover in due course Horoscopy was impossible. You probably wouldn't be first or the last.

Anyway it's up to the Skyscript controllers if they want a non-believer using up space on a religious forum.

Nixx wrote:

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.........'

(emphasis mine)

Nixx

It is probably better to let Juan explain what Juan's opinion on astrology is, the parts I've highlighted above teeter toward being disrespectful.
As Juan himself points out, it may be better to take his points one by one, if you wish, and demonstrate a superior argument rather than simply lambasting them as harmful and disingenuous.

In regards what Skyscript tolerates, it is not my place (or indeed yours) to suggest what Skyscript should tolerate, but we do know what it does not tolerate:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/templates ... r/read.php


On a broader level, the problem here is that we each come to the discussion of what astrology is or is not with an a priori understanding and philosophy that we work with. This has, to some extent, always been the case.

Paul wrote:

On a broader level, the problem here is that we each come to the discussion of what astrology is or is not with an a priori understanding and philosophy that we work with. This has, to some extent, always been the case.

I use the dictionary.

Debo did say some time back she did not want the space/place turned into a Horoscopy is a fallacy, we've all heard these irrelevant/irreverant Juanesque /real world postulates a million times, arena.

Anyway I got to go out and look for carpets, so I'll need to take a short break from my Nick Campionesque role playing here. If you are looking for a good read for Chrissy and have not perused it his 'What do Astrologers believe' is a cracker.

Nixx wrote:

Paul wrote:

On a broader level, the problem here is that we each come to the discussion of what astrology is or is not with an a priori understanding and philosophy that we work with. This has, to some extent, always been the case.

I use the dictionary.

Perhaps it depends on the dictionary.

Debo did say some time back she did not want the space/place turned into a Horoscopy is a fallacy, we've all heard these irrelevant/irreverant Juanesque /real world postulates a million times, arena.

Like Deb, I wouldn't want to see this place turned into a horoscopy is a fallacy arena either. But as I don't think Juan is doing that I see no reason to take it up as an issue. What instead Juan has postulated is that astrology is not causal and is instead a construct/tool/paradigm to model human and worldly behaviour. This falls within my dictionary's definition of astrology which is primarily linking celestial phenomena with human and worldly concerns - note that it doesn't necessarily preclude any particular ways that they may be linked. Juan has his own philosophy about how this occurs and varuna has another and perhaps you and I would still others. But that's okay. The original poster made the remark that there are many sub-groups of astrologers each with their own philosophy. I see no reason why we can't budge down the aisle and make room for Juan's as well - and, it should be noted, he is not alone in these opinions.

varuna2 wrote:We see all sorts of examples where the so-called natural sciences cannot offer proof, here are a few: singularities, black holes, dark matter, the original biological seed - for example, acorns. We also see contradictions, for example, light is a particle and a wave. We also see numerous unexplained phenomenon that science cannot yet account for. Therefore, the classification of astrology as a soft or social science, because of lack of proof, fails.

I never said that Astrology is akin to a social science "because it lacks proof". Astrology is better tied to the social sciences because of its subject matter, its methodology, and the nature of the tools it uses. The subject-matter of Astrology is a person, a life, a question, an event... all these are symbolic constructs, not physical entities. The methods astrologers use to deal with these are qualitative: metaphor and analogy, analytic induction, statements and construction of meaning, symbol manipulation... and the tools used (zodiacal signs, houses, radix charts, abstract and discrete coordinates, transits, progressions, etc.) are cultural inventions that do not exist in the natural or physical world or in the sky. These are the field of anthropology, linguistics, and semiotics.

What you list above is theories or models that are operationalized in terms of well- known physical laws. No such operationalization exists in Astrology, only a simple postulate (e.g."the planets and the stars are the cause of what happens on earth" or "astrology studies the correlation between celestial and earth events") with nothing in between but a simple and powerful metaphor.

Furthermore, even though the stars and planets send their rays to us all the time, astrologers never study these because nobody knows what is there to study nor how to model their effect or interaction with us. Instead of looking at real organisms the astrologer refers everything to the flat unidimensional coordinates of an artificially frozen instant of time long ago in the past (the radix, the birth chart) that is taken AS IF it were a real entity. This is a purely metaphoric and cultural convention that has nothing to do with natural science.

I would never state that the Jupiter in the sky is different from the Jupiter in the natal chart

You evidently are not familiar with the effects of latitude in an astrological chart. In the case of Jupiter these effects are not very notable, but in the cases of Venus and the Moon they can be dramatic. Additionally, Jupiter in a natal chart is a mere abstraction of something that happened a long time ago, it doesn't belong to the natural world like the Jupiter that can be seen in the sky, it exists only in the imagination. Therefore something like a simple astrological transit is physically impossible. Astrology does not provide tools to model how this Jupiter at the moment of your birth affects you, it can only model how it affects a set of abstract coordinates that are taken AS IF if it were you. This is not natural science.

I still do not quite know where you are coming from...

That's understandable, but you can check my previous posts in this section of the forum where I explain a little bit better, e.g.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5304
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5210

Juan

Good evening,

Methinks that one cannot appropriately use the word 'astrology' in the singular in the current period. There are 'astrologies', not astrology. This was in my humble opinion also the case in the mediaeval and ancient past, perhaps less extreme than today.

One might consider that there is also Chinese astrology with quite different underpinnings. Except for its often self-imposed language barrier of Sanskrit (one can translate most of ancient Greek, why not Sanskrit?), it seems to me that Indian astrology should be fully included in the framework of 'horoscopic' astrology. There are usually more similarities between Indian and Hellenistic astrologies than between either and modern astrologies.

Although i already stated my reason to often exclude Helios from the initial chart present to a client, i shall elaborate a bit to answer Mr Paul. To my naive, simplistic way of thinking, the faster points move astronomically, the more they indicate individual (rather than collective) attributes. As most are aware, aside for exceptions like stations, the order from fast to slow is: Pivots (angles), S?l?n?, Herm?s, Aphrodit?, Helios, Ar?s, Zeus, Kronos. Since there are two pivotal ax?s, Helios is the 6th of 9. Usually i put Him back in the chart at an appropriate stage after the client has been successfully de-conditioned from sun-sign astrological assumptions. In my humble experience his importance in natal astrology is generally much exaggerated in modern astrologies but already to some extent in the Western Renaissance.

Best regards,

lihin

PS Off Topic. To me being on a first-name basis with someone implies at least more than fleeting acquaintance, mostly trust or even friendship. Thus neither intent nor desire to be on such a basis with everyone. General use of first names voids these specific meanings and therefore, in my humble opinion, constitutes a linguistic impoverishment.

Hi lihin.

Usually i put Him back in the chart at an appropriate stage after the client has been successfully de-conditioned from sun-sign astrological assumptions. In my humble experience his importance in natal astrology is generally much exaggerated in modern astrologies but already to some extent in the Western Renaissance.

Would like to know how do you de-condition a client from 'Sun'? I had been rather absent from 'Skyscript' from the past 3 years. Perhaps your way of analysis may help me in my consultations

Horatio wrote:Hi lihin.

Usually i put Him back in the chart at an appropriate stage after the client has been successfully de-conditioned from sun-sign astrological assumptions. In my humble experience his importance in natal astrology is generally much exaggerated in modern astrologies but already to some extent in the Western Renaissance.

Would like to know how do you de-condition a client from 'Sun'? [..]

Just as I am very sceptic about this "de-conditioning" it would be of great interest to hear more about this and to discuss the matter. But: do you not agree that this is off topic here in the philosophical context of the existence of an astrolgogical community?
My proposal were a new thread in the Astrolgoy forum.

Johannes

But: do you not agree that this is off topic here in the philosophical context of the existence of an astrolgogical community?

Agreed.

Fine! But Horatio and lihin, don't forget to do it

delete

Paul wrote: The original poster made the remark that there are many sub-groups of astrologers each with their own philosophy. I see no reason why we can't budge down the aisle and make room for Juan's as well - and, it should be noted, he is not alone in these opinions.

Not many 'astrologers' (and consensual reality suggests Juan can't use this label) take the view the best way of engaging with your deep psyche is by using a birth date for you of 3/2/1833, Vienna, 3.23pm.

Most threads on Skyscript and most of the articles available here are made redundant, as well as the raison d??tre of this ?religious? cyber venue. (Forum Policy No 1 -Most Important, ...... might be worth re-reading!). Than again some might say in the light of Horoscopy's nasty history, and present (Burma, Mossad, 2nd world war ,,,,,,,,,,) , we need a paradigm shift into another dictionary and fora.

On the plus side Juan does eliminate the Zodiac problem, unknown TOB?S's, house system?s, and numerous other tuning issues with the ''higher cosmic morality'' , surely a reason to rejoice in this festive season (seasonal or not semantics eliminated as well.). Mince pie?