Fair enough but I was responding to a particular post before I made a general point. I do find though that modern astrologers sing from the same hymn sheet and often repeat the same dogmas and doctrines almost word for word over the decades. If I have ever been offended it is by ad hominen attacks rather than than me as a spokesman of traditional astrology which nobody has said I am

The fact that traditional astrology didn't recognize intuition as such doesn't mean that intuition didn't exist before modern times. It means that as a process intuition was not mentioned in the old teachings or texts. Rather, attention was paid to the outer world that was easily observed and understood. That's why astrology tended to deal with the prediction of events.

It's only since the birth of modern psychology that unconscious or super-conscious mental processes have been recognized and discussed. We can say that as these realms of consciousness became recognized for what they are, concurrently we had the discovery of the trans-Saturnian planets. Astrologers (correctly, I believe) have placed unconscious and super-conscious processes under Uranus and Neptune.

Therese wrote:

Astrologers (correctly, I believe) have placed unconscious and super-conscious processes under Uranus and Neptune.

What about Pluto and hypothetical further planets?

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

Therese replied:
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?"

Paul asked:
Respected by who I wonder?

I meant "respect" in a general sense. From my point of view, it would be very helpful for astrology if a person who wanted to become a professional counselor, for example, could have the option of adding astrological courses to their studies and get credit for them. At this time many members of the public still place astrology in the realm of fortune telling or the daily Sun sign column.

It would be nice if the public could say, "Oh, he's studying astrology to help with his understanding of....( marketing, or business or counseling or whatever....") If astrology had some educational standards, it would eliminate those who really don't know much about astrology, but set themselves up as astrologers anyway. That pulls the entire subject of astrology down and turns it into superstition or entertainment.

I do care greatly about astrology as a subject, even a Cosmic Science. Thus, I don't like it remaining in the realm of entertainment. Respect?? I was thinking of general respect among astrologers and the public. The advantage of academic respect is that there would be grant money for studies (not necessarily statistical) that would benefit astrology in general. Yes, this would mean standards that would have to be met, but even now astrology schools have fairly high study standards before certificates are given.

It's probably true that astrologers who would like to see professional standards have degrees or certificates themselves, and those who want to bypass standards and formal education haven't earned those certificates or degrees. So it comes down to personal experience, which of course influences attitudes. Yes, I value education, but shouldn't be criticized for that view.

Paul wrote:
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.

We need a lot more than discussion. We need research and working together to discover which facets of astrology are truly helpful, and which can be safely discarded as having no value. This is what education and research are all about. Academics build on each other's work, and knowledge increases for everyone in the field.

As astrology is today, each astrologer is an isolated unit following his or her own path. The result is a standstill for astrology. Or the endless bickering which often appears on forums. Not, "Oh, that's interesting. I'll look into that idea further to see if it's valid." No, more likely an opposing argument is presented, usually without supporting data. That is not an academic approach to learning.

Cyril Fagan and his associates had some interesting views on Pluto which I'll post on the "Notes from Cyril Fagan" topic. In the meantime:

EDGAR CAYCE ON PLUTO:

14. (Q) Just what are the effects of Pluto, in conjunction with one's ascendant?

(A) This as we find is entirely amiss from what we might call a physical expression, - but, as we find indicated, these are a development that is occurring in the universe, or environs about the earth - Pluto. Not as some have indicated, that it is gradually being dissipated. It is gradually GROWING, and thus is one of those influences that are to be as a demonstrative activity in the future affairs or developments of man towards the spiritual-minded influences, or those influences outside of himself.

These in the present, as might be said, are merely the becoming AWARE of same. Rather within the next hundred to two hundred years there may be a great deal of influence upon the ascendancy of man; for it's closest of those to the activities of the earth, to be sure, and is a DEVELOPING influence, and not one already established.
(Edgar Cayce Reading 1100-27, 2 December, 1939)

Thank you, Therese

One thing we do have in common is an interest in Edgar Cayce!

Michael

Michael Sternbach wrote:Thank you, Therese

One thing we do have in common is an interest in Edgar Cayce!

I've been a student of the Cayce readings since the 1970s....have all the books on Cayce's astrology and the CD with all the readings. But I'm not happy with the current direction of his organization, the A.R.E.

Therese Hamilton wrote: I do care greatly about astrology as a subject, even a Cosmic Science. Thus, I don't like it remaining in the realm of entertainment. Respect?? I was thinking of general respect among astrologers and the public. The advantage of academic respect is that there would be grant money for studies (not necessarily statistical) that would benefit astrology in general. Yes, this would mean standards that would have to be met, but even now astrology schools have fairly high study standards before certificates are given.

To say Astrology needs a good injection of academic research is a bit like saying how valuable water is to someone dying of thirst in the desert! In other words - Bring it on!

Therese Hamilton wrote: We need a lot more than discussion. We need research and working together to discover which facets of astrology are truly helpful, and which can be safely discarded as having no value. This is what education and research are all about. Academics build on each other's work, and knowledge increases for everyone in the field.

Once again, well said Therese! IF only that message could get through some stubborn heads... or are they afraid the great delusion of "believing what other astrologers say" because its been around for thousands of years therefore it MUST be true...without proper educated research such as "academia" entails, the cycle of self delusion will continue..

Therese Hamilton wrote: As astrology is today, each astrologer is an isolated unit following his or her own path. The result is a standstill for astrology. Or the endless bickering which often appears on forums. Not, "Oh, that's interesting. I'll look into that idea further to see if it's valid." No, more likely an opposing argument is presented, usually without supporting data. That is not an academic approach to learning.

Yep, just have a look around the internet or any other public discussion platform, the proof is in the pudding. I think some astrologers actually enjoy bickering and arguing without proper academic research to support claims. If only for one's "Pride"...

Thanks so much for your reply, Rod! I'm happy that at least one person understood the point I was trying to make. Sadly, it does seem that some members on astrological forums are there only because they seem to enjoy arguing or having a say, even if that say adds nothing to the conversation. Most of the astrological forums I've participated in over the years have disappeared. Skyscript is one of the few remaining.

Therese

Therese, do you ever consider that most just don't agree with you rather than a lack of understanding? You talk of academic influence and rigour but use the words of a reputed psychic as foundational principles of your research. To me that is exactly what you claim academic influence would remove.

I'm happy to discuss practicalities but the problem is it is really just two people presenting their method, which is fine, but I sense thst isn't what you're looking for.

Therese Hamilton wrote:Thus, I don't like it remaining in the realm of entertainment. Respect?? I was thinking of general respect among astrologers and the public. The advantage of academic respect is that there would be grant money for studies (not necessarily statistical) that would benefit astrology in general. Yes, this would mean standards that would have to be met, but even now astrology schools have fairly high study standards before certificates are given.

It's probably true that astrologers who would like to see professional standards have degrees or certificates themselves, and those who want to bypass standards and formal education haven't earned those certificates or degrees. So it comes down to personal experience, which of course influences attitudes. Yes, I value education, but shouldn't be criticized for that view.

Therese

I am not sure who has criticised you for your valuing education. From my point of view, to echo Konrad's last post, I think people just have different views on the matter.

I would like to clarify my view though, as I don't think it has been understood fully. I do not care whether academics respect astrology, nor whether Universities teach astrology or have astrology modules that student studying other subjects can also gain credit for. I strongly resonate with James' analogy of music pertaining back to my comment that academia does not have a monopoly on knowledge etc.

But I think you really mean a few different things. Firstly you wish for astrologers to be educated and astrology to be well taught. Well I am all for that as well. I do not necessarily think that academia needs to respect astrology for that to happen or that universities have a monopoly on the education process. I attended a school of astrology in London. It wasn't a University. I learned a lot of good astrology. I think, rather than look to academia to value judge astrology/astrologers as worthy of their respect, we would do better to look inwards and, as a community, push for having our own internal sense of value and professionalism and education. We do not need a university professor to value astrology or astrologers for that to happen. Personally I value astrology and astrologers enough that I really do not need anyone else to, provided I am given free reign to continue to study and practice it as I see fit.

Secondly you wish for astrology to be respected by the wider public. It seems that an underlying motivation is that by gaining academic respect, we can use this to leverage a general demand for respect amongst the wider public. Well, once again, if astrologers as a community act in way deserving of respect, we will have earned it on our own right, rather than using academia as a platform to spring from to expect it.

Thirdly you wish to have access to university resources and grants. I understand that, and I addressed it in my previous post. What I meant was that student studying philosphy, history etc. can already leverage their academic resources. Heres the rub, you say, on the other thread:

Right!! But a university has a library! How many of us have the resources to keep purchasing all these new and wonderful translations?! It's really helpful to go to a section in a library and see a selection of books on the topic we want to read about.

Well that's the thing, if someone does not have access to a University, then they won't have access to University resources. But this actually undermines your point for desiring academic acknowledgement, because it continues to rely upon someone who is in a University. Not having academic respect tells us nothing about whether or not someone has access to a library.

In fact this is a major reason I would be against academia getting involved. Because right now the situation with astrology is that anyone regardless of their financial situation etc. can start to study and practice astrology. They do not need to pay massive sums of money to Universities to be allowed this privilege. Nor do they have to subscribe to some particular body's idea of what astrology should be.

Let's theoretically imagine this university course on astrology. What would it teach? That tropical signs are a modern problem and that sidereal signs are the most historically accurate and true? Would it teach your own views on astrology? Surely when I am in charge it will teach mine? WIll it teach that horary is rubbish as some astrologers believe? Or that natal forecasting is a waste of time?

Would the one true astrology please stand up, because whilst we have all these different flavours and each of them is "allowed" to be studied by whomever wishes to do so, we have more diversity and yes, less broad agreement on some things. However I infinitely prefer this approach, where I am given liberty to make up my own mind on a given area of astrology or historical point, then to have a top down enforcing of what astrology is or ought to be. Because that is down to the highly individual idiosyncrasies of that astrologer or group of astrologers. What do we do instead? Teach sidereal astrology alongside tropical and allow students to hand in their coursework in either zodiac? This would never happen.

Instead we can still learn and research the philosophy behind astrology in philosophy dissertations, and its history in history dissertations. We study the subjects without needing the respect and therefore the control and interest of academics and we leave astrology as a branch that allows the individual to make up their own mind on controversial issues rather than have universities make it for them.

In addition, an extreme example of academic 'respect' would be to reserve the term "Astrologer" such as we have with the reserved word "architect" or "doctor". It is easy to imagine that, just like with law or with medicine, or architecture, that one cannot be or practice astrology, or indeed perhaps study it, unless they have the relevant academic qualifications, I am fundamentally against this idea of monopolising education. I am all for needing some system to demonstrate the acknowledgement by their peers for certain disciplines, such as medicine and law etc.
However I prefer that someone can be an astrologer without needing to pay someone extortionate fees every year for the privilege.

Right now I am completing a post-graduate in computer science in London. For my two year part time course I have paid about ?9000. Lucky me. I can afford that. But many cannot, and many great astrologers with fantastic insights may not have gotten the opportunities they did if astrology was suddenly under the interested eye of academia.

I take an extreme example of course, but I think it's worth considering. If someone is not fortunate enough to have access to University resources such as a library then they won't suddenly have this opportunity just because said university adds it to their syllabus - the library will still be just as inaccessible as ever. Instead the only people who might benefit are those who are already able to access the resources, and really with the exception of research grants, they can do this already.

I am all for requiring some sense of professionalism and education. But it is just that I do not think academia is the best approach for this to be done, and I'd much rather it is done internally, using the carrot approach rather than the potentially top down stick approach of a university.

Interestingly I might just add one thing about the presumed lack of respect of academia. One of my end of year submissions will include a piece of work centring on astrology. My professor did not give a damn one way or another about the subject matter. Not having the respect of academia does not always imply that we have their disrespect either.

Paul wrote:
Let's theoretically imagine this university course on astrology. What would it teach? That tropical signs are a modern problem and that sidereal signs are the most historically accurate and true? Would it teach your own views on astrology? Surely when I am in charge it will teach mine? WIll it teach that horary is rubbish as some astrologers believe? Or that natal forecasting is a waste of time?

Instead we can still learn and research the philosophy behind astrology in philosophy dissertations, and its history in history dissertations.

This is exactly the point I raised in my Facebook page... I completely agree with you, Paul. An academical course necessarily means to me Professors with an adeguate background, which is not always the case, I'm afraid.

margherita