i really like what paul had to say too. i agree with konrads quick overview as well.

much of the conversation here seems to be philosophical in nature.

as i understand it, therese is in favour of some type of 'formal' educational process' for astrology whereby astrology gains a type of legitimacy it doesn't presently have. we had a long conversation on the philosophy forum that discussed this same topic - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7817

Konrad wrote:

You talk of academic influence and rigour but use the words of a reputed psychic as foundational principles of your research.

Konrad, I'm not sure what you mean here? Do you mean that I sometimes post quotes from Edgar Cayce? Those quotes aren't fundamental principles of my research. But perhaps you mean something else?

Therese Hamilton wrote:Konrad wrote:

You talk of academic influence and rigour but use the words of a reputed psychic as foundational principles of your research.

Konrad, I'm not sure what you mean here? Do you mean that I sometimes post quotes from Edgar Cayce? Those quotes aren't fundamental principles of my research. But perhaps you mean something else?

Yes, Cayce. You use his readings to provide significations for the invisible planets. That seems pretty foundational to me, but contradicts the academic rigour you want to put astrology and its practitioners through. Not a huge deal, just an observation.

Therese Hamilton wrote: 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." So it appears to be a false assumption that intuition as such is a lunar trait. As astrologers I believe we would all like to say we use clear logic in our astrological work combined with a helpful dose of intuition.

If for the sake of argument we say Medieval Astrology was formulated in Baghdad in the eighth or ninth century then we will not find a reference to intuition because intuition is a word in the English language - a language that did not even exist at that time. Some people were aware that there was a sphere beyond Saturn. Saturn ruled time and space and if one could go beyond his realm one could experience the realm known as Empyrean or Heaven. They felt no need to add more barriers to Saturn like Uranus or whatever. To describe these realms as "transpersonal" or supra conscious is merely to coin a neologism that adds nothing to my understanding and probably to no one else's either I would guess

Konrad wrote:

Yes, Cayce. You use his readings to provide significations for the invisible planets. That seems pretty foundational to me, but contradicts the academic rigour you want to put astrology and its practitioners through. Not a huge deal, just an observation.

I posted the Pluto quote because Michael asked what Cayce said about Pluto. I was just being helpful. It's true that I have material on Cayce's astrology. I also have all the Project Hindsight publications, Ben Dykes' translations, Rob Hand's books, many articles and books by various astrologers, etc. It's all for study purposes. But when I research a topic, it's investigation and not something like "I've got to find evidence that what Cayce said about Neptune is true." That's not science or investigation.

The main focus of the Cayce readings was on spiritual principles to live by. That and thousands of medical readings for clients with health concerns. Astrology came into the readings purely by accident.

Real education is open ended---learning how to ask the right questions. It's not force feeding information to anyone who will listen. But in order to know how to ask the right questions, there has to be training in logical thinking and a foundation in whatever subject a person want to study.

This thread has gone "off topic" a bit don't you all think?
In my opinion let Therese continue what she thinks is right under this topics thread tittle.
The last couple pages of this thread are bordering on philosophical issues with eduction in astrology as a subject.

RodJM wrote:This thread has gone "off topic" a bit don't you all think?
In my opinion let Therese continue what she thinks is right under this topics thread tittle.
The last couple pages of this thread are bordering on philosophical issues with eduction in astrology as a subject.

I agree but as Therese Hamilton was the op then it should be up to her to say so and the moderators to judge. As a general point I ask why does Skyscript have a separate space for philosophy anyway? It is actually for science and philosophy but it implies that they are separate subjects that do not really count as important but are mere side issues to Astrology. I am not the spokeswoman for the "tradition" but surely in former times everything came under the umbrella term philosophy? Was not science called natural philosophy. It was then that Astrology was a respected part of the curriculum and that it what we want now is it not? Perhaps the wheel will turn in our favour again some time but perhaps not in the present Zeitgeist. A zeit with no Geist