Geoffrey wrote:

Nixx wrote: When you experience a thought do you accept this is a biological phenomena, in this case a manifestation of a neural network.

Seems almost impossible these days to suggest the body hosts some kind of ethereal spiritual entity.

And as we now know that all the planets (with the exception of the Moon and the Sun) are too far away to have any causal effect on organic systems here on earth, it seem almost impossible these days to suggest that they have the kind of powers accepted without question by astrologers.

... Yet, here you are.

Or are you a troll?

I wasn?t explicitly thinking of causal effect, although this would be widely assumed. More so at some juncture, seemingly soon, a person could have their brain activity observed and the neuropsychologist be able to determine whether or not someone believed in a notion such as Myriam's that human beings are 'spiritual entities' Or if they are or aren?t engaged in troll like brain behaviour when writing a post on a cyber astrology forum.

[quote="Myriam Hildotter"

Seems almost impossible these days to suggest the body hosts some kind of ethereal spiritual entity.

Why? What can modern science really tell us about the soul!

[/quote]

In time perhaps everything.

When we use the term soul we refer to physical/mental states in connection with the experience of purpose, meaning, love...etc. Developments in neuroscience seems to suggest when a person is experiencing what we regard, or have been regarded over the years as soul states or behaviours this could be measured objectively.

For example, with sophisticated brain observational technology a few brains could be wired up, one day, and it determined objectively who is or isn?t what we might regard as a 'deep soul?, or in a soulful mood, at 'one? with the universe. sympathetic to animism, listening to soul music, blah blah blah or is this brain behaviour indicative of a person who thinks the idea that homo sapiens are soulful or spiritual entities is a load of antiquated superstitious western or eastern metaphysical hogwash.

Myriam, I fully understand that you didn't invent many of the ideas that you posted here and on your blog articles! However, since you're posting here and your sources are not, it seems fair to ask you.

You wrote, "Truth is generally measured by adherence to Tradition, particularly when there is consensus between different versions of Tradition. For example, the planetary associations for days of the week are the same everywhere! Tradition has been broken, to be sure, so often it is a matter of trying to pick up broken pieces to put together."

I don't find this to be reasonable. There isn't a single Tradition (despite some Hellenistic astrologers' assertions.) For one thing, the process of developing a text over time doesn't work that way. Moreover, "Tradition" has so many different data-bytes. What happens is that subsequent interpreters do a lot of editing of this confusion in order to weave a streamlined and coherent narrative. Historiography is one field that has a lot to say about this process. Textual criticism is another.

Sometimes a Tradition appears to be "true" merely because its proponents in the past suppressed "heretical" texts.

And on what basis, even if we take your point, would you know if a given proposition from Tradition were correct? People believed all kinds of things in astrology's past (such as myths about the Hellenistic gods) that we don't believe today.

We don't take Tradition holus-bolus, but do a lot of trimming, interpretation, and expanding-- Procrustean Bed style, to make propositions fit our preconceived beliefs.

waybread wrote: We don't take Tradition holus-bolus, but do a lot of trimming, interpretation, and expanding-- Procrustean Bed style, to make propositions fit our preconceived beliefs.

waybread,

thanks for making a post that articulates a lot of my own inner thoughts on these topics. there are more then a few modern day procrustes types roaming round in different fields today. the topic of formal verses informal education as it relates to music is an informative one for me in so far as i can see parallels in the astrology arena.

there are some musicians like wynton marsalis who have attempted in the past to articulate a particular view on jazz that is very narrow in scope and that a lot of others didn't or don't agree with (keith jarrett for one). then we see the template for teaching jazz in canada has been decided to a degree by the alumni at mcgill university where putting an emphasis on a thin wedge of the music from about the late 40's - bebop, to the late 60's, prior to the influence of rock is much of the focus for some of the other institutions where jazz is taught in canada in a formal context. unfortunately the idea that louis armstrong, or george gerswhin had a huge influence on the direction of the music or that it didn't matter what the colour of there skin was is ignored by some folks in order to fit on the narrow wedge of an ideology that is essentially devoid of the wider history of the music, let alone where it is in the present sense.

not everyone does this, but there are so many parallels i see in the jazz music realm that i have some first hand knowledge about.. when someone mentions 'the tradition' it is usually a set up for a particular dogma or ideology that is barren and devoid of the diversity and layers of activity that are going on at present that help shape where the art form is today.. to say it all goes back to 'the tradition' is a huge cop out and avoidance of what i will call 'the living tradition' as lived today.. this is part of the reason i get annoyed with these labels as they often reflect an inability to pick up on the many nuances that breathe life into any art form whether it be jazz or astrology. thanks again for your latest comments waybread.

Waybread,

I am well aware of the scientific method. The things you say have been drilled into me, as they have into those of my generation since early childhood. I do not know the state of science education, now, but as education in general has declined, I would not doubt that science education has as well. I have been appalled at what has passed for mathematics with school age children these days.

If you are interested, much of what I am saying is based on the work of traditionalist philosophers, such as Mr. Rene Geunon and Mr. Ananda Coomaraswamy, mediated through teachers, and through the work of Miss Alice Lucy Trent in the Feminine Universe.

Of course, I am writing on forums and on blogs, so, this is not academic writing, and I am not necessarily going to put in the time and effort to footnote and the like. You have not been doing that either, nor has anyone else.

The thing is that I don't know that this would really matter all that much. I doubt that you would find my sources authoritative. I would find your sources authoritative only to the extent that they are addressing the physical world.

One of the examples given in the Feminine Universe is a physician who says that he has studied the human body thoroughly and states with assumed authority that there is no life after death. One can accept the authority of the physician with respect to the physical processes of the body during life and the physical causes of death. As to the subject of life after death, the physician has no more expertise than anyone else.

Actually, when studying Tradition, you might be surprised at how much consensus there really is (and between diverse regions and cultures), particularly when one is able to understand that very little refers to literal, physical facts, but most Tradition is meant to be understood symbolically!

Honestly though, I do not expect to convince you, or anyone. On the other hand, back to the subject of this thread, your position, which is modern Western conventional wisdom, is the reason that I am rather dubious about there being any formal, regulated education or licensing in astrology. I think that it would stamp out one of the few places left where remnants of Traditional thought can be found in the West!

Myriam Hildotter wrote:

I am well aware of the scientific method. The things you say have been drilled into me, as they have into those of my generation since early childhood. I do not know the state of science education, now, but as education in general has declined, I would not doubt that science education has as well. I have been appalled at what has passed for mathematics with school age children these days.

In the UK the quality of education appears to have risen quite remarkably in the last few decades. Not sure about worldwide?

Myriam, my question is really simple. I am just asking, if we unpack "Tradition," what is your basis for determining whether a given proposition is correct or not?

By "Tradition" do you mean a specific Western intellectual tradition? We could look to many other cultures and find, for example, that they name the days of the week differently. Are they wrong if they don't agree with a European tradition? Moreover, we don't believe in the gods for whom our weekdays are named; suggesting that some traditions are merely historical artefacts.

Don't you have to go beyond agreement with a handful of sources? Couldn't they agree, and yet be substantively incorrect?

I don't think the essentialist argument is difficult to grasp. But the idea that an entity imagines "bird" such that birds manifest physically, doesn't acknowledge the thousands of bird species on the planet, ranging from ostriches to humming birds, Andean condors to penguins. Did the entity somehow imagine all of these thousands of species separately? Or mighten't there be space in here for evolution?

Thanks, James-- it's nice to be on the same side of an issue, for a change. My parallel example would be the novel. A novel might be great literature-- part of the orthodox literary canon-- or it might be the latest Harlequin romance. Science works a lot differently, in part due to the huge expense of most research and its team orientation. Much of it requires a large physical infrastructure and institutional infrastructure, also. Nobody's going to have a particle accelerator in the basement.

I suspect that as "street" jazz evolves, the academics will catch up with it eventually.

James and Waybread,

I started to answer this, and spent a rather long time on a discussion about this, but I think I need to just make a few simple points. I do not think we are even close to the same page on these things.

The tradition I am speaking of is the Primodial Tradition, which I believe has been passed down from the beginning of time through our ancestors. Waybread, you have bemoaned criticisms of science by people who know nothing about it. An understanding of Tradition is much, much more lacking! The traditions you speak of are all remnants of the Primordial Tradition, which is larger than all of them!

We could look to many other cultures and find, for example, that they name the days of the week differently. Are they wrong if they don't agree with a European tradition? Moreover, we don't believe in the gods for whom our weekdays are named; suggesting that some traditions are merely historical artefacts.

This is an example. The "gods" our weekdays are based on are not really gods, but aspects of the Divine, which are represented in planetary principles. The "names" of the days of the week may not be the same, but the same days are matched with the same planetary principles in the East (although, in the East the non-luminary planetary principles are associated with the 5 elements in that economy). Also, the seven planetary principles or "gods" are consistent in meaning everywhere! Mercury is associated with Intelligence pretty much uniformly. The stories may be different, but the symbolism is the same.

I have really gotten much further bogged down in this discussion than I had intended. We are not even on the same page on the basic premise, so really does not seem a good use of time to be discussing the finer points that you are bringing up.

Let's just agree to disagree. How does that sound?

hi myriam,

sure! lets agree to disagree, while saying we aren't talking about the same thing!

i get the sense from reading your comments that a person of today is cut off from the "Primodial Tradition" since they have had so much of the wrong data/ideas/stuff (baggage essentially) put into them thru the modern culture they live in. my problem with this viewpoint (if this is indeed your view) is that it suggests that what we are made of that has existed from before the beginning of time is something we are cut off from with no way of getting in touch with.. i just don't see it that way.. all the talk about adopting traditional astrology as a means of getting back to the 'primodial tradition' is really irrelevant as one will never be able to get back if they can't get in touch within themselves in a deeper and more meaningful way. all the books and ideas - education formal or informal, is either a crutch or something that brings a greater understanding and freedom on who we are which shines a light on our connectedness with everyone else.

thanks for trying to articulate your ideas here.

James,

Now we are getting rather deep into things, but it is not true that we will never get back.

Fundamental to this philosophy is the concept that eventually all will return, and that the separation is an illusion. In some ways, it is actually easier in the late Kali Yuga, because smaller efforts have a bigger impact.

This is getting rather deep into things, though, and if it seems like a cop out, imagine trying to explain squares, sextiles, and oppositions between planets in astrology to someone who keeps insisting that astrology is a mere superstition and wants to talk with you about newspaper horoscopes.

There really is a richness to the study of Tradition, and I am not talking about a rigid application of techniques, but a deeper understanding of the mythology, stories, traditions, fairy tales, etc., from our ancestors, and seeing how these inform the techniques we use as astrologers. It can also help us sort through what makes sense and what doesn't as our practice has developed.

James, you talk a lot about frustration with the distinction between Modern and Traditional Astrology, and it ends up being personal. When we get beyond the philosophy, the nuts and bolts of what we are talking about is what techniques do we use, and how we decide what to use and what not to use. If one employed all the techniques one possibly can find, there would be so much information that we would never be able to actually read a chart.

Waybread's approach (I am assuming) is to study the research that has been done, with as close as possible to the scientific method as can be approximated. I am not sure what criteria you use to sort through methods, to be honest, James. Maybe you can shed some light on that for us.

I sort through methods by first looking to older material, which honestly is a hodgepodge as well. Much less of a hodgepodge than we have now, I think. Before I started studying Essentialist thought (although I think I have always sort of believed these things, without vocabulary for it), I would sort through by what seemed to work and what didn't in practice. Now, I know enough to understand the *reasons* for methodology..or at least sometimes, which is helpful for evaluating it.

This makes a difference to education, in that I believe Waybread would want to teach the scientific method, psychology, and other research methodology. While I would not object to some teaching in these areas, I would focus much more heavily on mythology, Ancient philosophy, and metaphysical studies.

It also makes a difference to very simple questions, like, what planet rules Scorpio? Does Chiron have meaning in astrology, and should Chiron be studied at all?

Myriam, it sounds like what you are suggesting is a belief system based entirely on faith and authority.

I understand a reasonable amount of where you are coming from. It sounds Platonist/Neo-Platonist. Plutarch in Isis and Osiris talked about the Egyptian gods understood as mere manifestations of a deeper divine. Some of it shows up in Manilius, Astronomica. We could throw in the Gnostics for good measure.

But some of us cannot and will not shut down our critical faculties.

Myriam,

I assume you meant Primordial Tradition, with an 'r'. I really don't find credible tossed-off statements like "since the beginning of time." You mean there was a Primordial Tradition before there were humans? Wikipedia's article, which you can find here, begins: "The Primordial Tradition is a school of religious philosophy that holds its origins in the philosophia perennis, or perennial philosophy, which is in turn a development of the prisca theologia of the Middle Ages." The reference is "Antoine Faivre and Karen-Claire Voss, Western Esotericism and the Science of Religions, in Numen, Vol. 42 (E. J. Brill, Leiden 1995) 50-51" So according to Faivre and Voss the tradition you assume goes back to the beginning of time, whatever that might mean, actually has its roots in the Middle Ages, which I find a lot more plausible than your vague assertion.

I've read much of the material you've linked to in your posts and while it appears coherent and thoughtful it bothers me that so much of it is based on unevidenced assumptions, with no indication even of where it came from or could have come from, given that much of it is not stuff humans could have known unless they were superhuman or had a direct pipeline to God or Truth. Which we're supposed to take your word for, of course, or the word of the ancients you venerate. As for older is better, about which you're admirably direct, does that apply to all things, such as, for instance, astronomy and cosmology? Do you believe that the sky is the underbelly of a giant cow whose feet rest on the four corners of the earth? Do you believe that the pinpricks of light in the night sky are glimpses of the roaring fire that is the Hearth of Zeus, as seen through holes on the inside of the bark of a giant hollow tree? Do you think the earth is flat, or that it is at the center of the cosmos with the sun and planets circling round, or do you favor the Tychonic version, in which the planets circle the sun which in turn circles the earth. Exactly how far back do you go to obtain your version of Truth and, a question that cropped up repeatedly in my mind when I read your treatises, how do you know?