Therese Hamilton wrote:Martin wrote:

Assuming that several mutually contradictory models can be true, equally and in the same sense, strikes me as a very modern, post-modernist view, rather different from most if not all traditional forms of divination.

I have bolded the last sentence of your post because it particularly resonates with what I see as a major problem of modern astrological thinking. It's a view that defies logic.

this is the first mention by therese using the word 'logic' which i challenged directly by suggesting logic is not the only means of acquiring knowledge.

james_m wrote: does logic trump intuition or do we need both in order to understand our world and astrology more fully?

i went on to discuss the astrological symbolism of mercury and the moon, 2 planets that represent 2 different aspects of the mind - the conscious and subconscious mind. i didn't give an explanation for these terms, nor did i give an explanation of intuition but if someone is interested they can read up on the terms via the internet. bottom line for me is this - intuition is another form of perception which i associate on some level with the mind. whether one wants to connect it to an outer planet in terms of symbolism, i still believe the moon plays a key role in it's ability to function and come to the surface.. here is a short quote on intuition that i like. "Intuition is often considered the ability to synthesize and deduce from all of our accumulated unconscious, or subconscious experiences.."

i think it really depends on how these terms are used as to how they might be applied astrologically, but that is beside the point for me here. the point is that because something can't be explained logically, it must therefore be invalid which is how i take therese's comments/interpretation of martins word. i strongly disagree with that viewpoint fwiw.

RodJM wrote

Paying attention to accepted definitions would be first step towards hauling it into academia.

Do you think that would good for astrology? Or not? I expect that very debate to eventually surface within astrology. Do astrologers want astrology to eventually be a respected topic of study? Or would they be happy to let it continue to be "to each his own?"

Just now I posted some of the Gauquelin findings on the Moon. How many astrologers are aware of those findings? How many would prefer to continue with their own opinion and find reasons to ignore the Gauquelin research, zodiac research, historical translations and so forth? It's so much easier to remain with a personal belief system. Personal belief systems are comfort zones.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Do astrologers want astrology to eventually be a respected topic of study? Or would they be happy to let it continue to be "to each his own?"

is astrology art or science? or, a bit of both? i tend towards the art end myself. words like 'respect' kinda bug me! respect has to be earned and i don't think it is gotten via putting on a label on your shirt, so much are getting it by demonstration and leading by example. i don't really give a fig how many doctorates a person has.. if they have something relevant to say about astrology, or think they know something valuable and relevant - let them share it, otherwise it isn't worth much to anyone regardless of the titles that they have..

Therese Hamilton wrote: Just now I posted some of the Gauquelin findings on the Moon. How many astrologers are aware of those findings? How many would prefer to continue with their own opinion and find reasons to ignore the Gauquelin research, zodiac research, historical translations and so forth? It's so much easier to remain with a personal belief system. Personal belief systems are comfort zones.

i am 3/4 of the way thru barbaults book that came out 2014 - the value of astrology.. he discussed gauguelin's research a number of times in the book. of course back in the 80's the gauguelins were on speaking tours and i saw francious when she happened to come to vancouver back then too.. i had read a few of their books at the time. i took a special interest in what they had to say about the moon as i have it rising in my chart.

everyone has a personal belief system. are you suggesting you don't have one? lol..

Therese Hamilton wrote:For the most part ancient texts didn't give psychological meanings to the Moon, so the Gauquelin work is ground breaking. Check out the Gauquelin books. Good reading! We just need to know which traits go with which planets. That's what makes a good perceptive astrologer.

It just occured to me that I read popular editions of the Gauquelin research in English long before I actually began to look at the nuts and bolts of Astrology. Traditionalists seem to ignore all this in favour of authority and then scratch their heads when twelfth house natives succeed in life and so on.
MJ
ps There is a suggestion that we start a new topic but as OP what do you think?

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Just now I posted some of the Gauquelin findings on the Moon. How many astrologers are aware of those findings? How many would prefer to continue with their own opinion and find reasons to ignore the Gauquelin research, zodiac research, historical translations and so forth? It's so much easier to remain with a personal belief system. Personal belief systems are comfort zones.

Statistics are a very treacherous field. It's easy to believe what we desire to believe. Gauguelins'stats have been tested several times with different results:

http://www.planetos.info/marchron.html

Mark wrote: Here is a recorded online radio interview with Geoffrey Cornelius. The interview doesn't really start until 06.50 mins in.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 9130#89130

Mark

I think you pasted the wrong link.

Mjacob wrote:First off I do find it hard to imagine that humanity only learnt intuition once someone discovered Uranus. Hallucinogens have been used since time immemorial but according to modern astrology they were only invented since the discovery of Neptune.
It takes a great leap of imagination to believe that a zodiac chart is reality. You need to imagine imaginary lines in the sky dividing arbitrary twelfth divisions and then decide where the house divisions lie except that nobody can. To say that judgements based on these criteria are logical is absurd.
Whether this delusion is caused by the moon or Neptune I do not know.

Mjacob

I wonder what modern astrologers ever attested that hallucinogens "were only invented since the discovery of Neptune" or "humanity only learnt intuition once someone discovered Uranus".

Modern astrology tends to link intuition with Uranus, and Neptune with hallucinogenics, but I do not think the claim is widely made that such things ceased to exist before we discovered the outer planets. Similarly many modern astrologers link Pluto to death, but nobody ever said death is only a recent feature of the 20th century.

Therese Hamilton wrote:RodJM wrote

Paying attention to accepted definitions would be first step towards hauling it into academia.

Do you think that would good for astrology? Or not? I expect that very debate to eventually surface within astrology. Do astrologers want astrology to eventually be a respected topic of study? Or would they be happy to let it continue to be "to each his own?"

Respected by who I wonder?

For me, I don't really care what other people think of astrology, provided I continue to be free to study it myself. The only thing I think of is that if it was more widely popular we'd have more access to discussions and translations and more people working on those and more discussions generated and ultimately more opportunities for learning. Outside of that, I don't really mind or care what people think of astrology, whether they respect it or not. I'm not sure why I would either.

From your context I presume you mean academically respected. Well ultimately I do not think academic acceptance accounts for a great deal. There are many forms of expression or bodies of knowledge that academia have little to say on or express cynicism for. I am fundamentally against the notion that is so often prevalent in society that academic pursuits have something more worthy or more 'true'. I am taking academic here to mean acknowledged by major universities as a worthy pursuit of study.

well said paul re the respect issue.. i often compare astrology with music. do i care if people 'respect' music? i could care less, lol.. when i go to see metalica, or pavorati or whoever performing, am i concerned if they don't have a degree pasted on the backstage showing their cred? lol - it is about the music, or in this case astrology folks!

[quote="PaulI wonder what modern astrologers ever attested that hallucinogens "were only invented since the discovery of Neptune" or "humanity only learnt intuition once someone discovered Uranus".

Perhaps you are taking this too literally. Someone must have first stated that Neptune had something to do with drugs after the discovery of Neptune. You are taking a single quote out of context. I was responding to this from Therese Hamilton on the 6th May

Intuition isn't a concept found in ancient texts. It's a modern concept, and most likely belongs to Uranus or Neptune or both. That is exactly where Rex Bill's The Rulership Book places intuition: "Uranus, Neptune, 9th house."

I was perhaps sending this up a little but it does seem to suggest that modern astrologers believe that things only exist after the modern planet is discovered that symbolises them

In the interests of balance I also replied to Therese on the subject of Gauquelin by criticising Traditional practice

Regards
MJ

Paul wrote:



Similarly many modern astrologers link Pluto to death, but nobody ever said death is only a recent feature of the 20th century.

somebody changed the meaning of the eighth house from death to transformation didn't they? Seems like death no longer exists at all

Mjacob wrote: I was perhaps sending this up a little but it does seem to suggest that modern astrologers believe that things only exist after the modern planet is discovered that symbolises them

Okay, I don't want to make a big deal out of it either. I just get a little uncomfortable when we take pot shots at other forms of astrology. One thing I notice is that traditionally inclined astrologers really do not like when modern astrologers misrepresent their views, and I think it's important that we don't misrepresent the modern view either.