Skyscript Astrology Forum

astrojin

it's true what you say in the first half and funny too!

as for morin, maybe he too was a product of his time.. it is difficult to appreciate as we live in a different time! perhaps we too are guilty of making conclusions on topics that we don't have the ability to perceive in a larger historical context.. i am speculating.. i do find this adoption of terms/bounds sort of like a knee jerk response by many.. it goes something like this : if you are going to be a ''traditional astrologer'' and give yourself that tag, well you then have to use the terms/bounds, or you really aren't a ''traditional astrologer''... something like that... and as i said earlier - the flavour of the month or moment - egyptian ( terms/bounds)... i watched a zoom meeting with sharon knight yesterday, put on by the scottish astrological association ( i recommend joining as the cost per year is well worth the investment if you are into astrology) where she focused on relationships... she also incorporated terms/bounds into the discussion on her astrological views on relationships... who am i to challenge the esteemed astrological authority sharon knight? lol... well, sorry but maybe she finds some value in them - as does martin - but i remain fully and i mean fully - unconvinced... regardless, i enjoyed her talk and recommend others consider being members of this association..

i was told that placidus came up with secondary progressions because he disowned profections... sec progs were very popular back in the 70/80's prior to seeing the light of day with lillys books coming out and taking over the astrological landscape! as i get older i see the relativity in so much of everything.. thanks for your ongoing commentary - always appreciated and typically very knowledgeable and informative...

astrojin wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 1:14 am[…] even though some of his beliefs were dead wrong e.g. he was a firm believer of the fixity of earth; a staunch opponent of Galileo […]

I cannot see what is wrong in setting the earth as point of rest. I find it very accurate and in accordance with my perception. Every movement depends on a reference and where this reference point is set one can choose according to his or her pleasure. I do not believe that the earth revolves around the sun; I believe that this is just one (legitimate) way of seeing it.

Every movement depends on a reference and where this reference point is set one can choose according to his or her pleasure.

Of course! But only for some information. Not all information can be obtained through relative referencing... Some things are absolute e.g. my clients want absolute answers to their real questions...

I do not believe that the earth revolves around the sun; I believe that this is just one (legitimate) way of seeing it.

You can believe whatever you want. Truth does not care... [I certainly don't!]

these arguments will go on until the end of time.

i say: just read charts in whatever way works for you, and try to remember that your responsibility lies in helping your querent and/or shedding light on a situation (moreso than agreeing with or impressing other members of the astrology scene).

astrojin wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 7:59 am

I do not believe that the earth revolves around the sun; I believe that this is just one (legitimate) way of seeing it.

You can believe whatever you want. Truth does not care... [I certainly don't!]

Sorry, it looks like you did not understand my point.

Jason wrote:[…] try to remember that your responsibility lies in helping your querent and/or shedding light on a situation (moreso than agreeing with or impressing other members of the astrology scene).

Surely this is more important than discussing a matter with colleagues! Nevertheless I wonder about the conviction that earth is moving around the sun. For me it is cristal clear that this only one way to see it and definitely not the absolute truth.

But this is only one point of Morinus’ statements…

Georgius,

What you call 'conviction' is rather an 'opinion'.
The normalization of 'opinions' as truths has nothing to do with Truth.
Opinions are not concerned to prove anything. In fact, they prove nothing.
Yet, opinions can be proven.
Your mother told you not to put a knife in the electrical plug. You did. That was your opinion to prove her wrong.
After several attempts in the plug, your opinion should change into something that resembles Truth.
This is the beginning of wisdom.

With regard to Morin, he was neither a subjectivist/relativist nor a proponent of classical geocentrism: he subscribed to the Tychonic cosmology, which has the Sun and Moon orbiting the earth, while the five planets proper orbit the Sun. And he certainly considered his view to be the only valid one.

Thank you for the link Martin!

Ouranus:

The normalization of 'opinions' as truths has nothing to do with Truth.
Opinions are not concerned to prove anything. In fact, they prove nothing.
Yet, opinions can be proven.

I love this!!!
I have sort of completed writing lecture notes on Logic and Mantiq (just a fancy arabic term for islamic philosophy of logic). And I find myself rewriting the first chapter more so than the others!..., especially the precise definitions of definition, axiom, statement, proposition, argument, etc.
I wish people would distinguish between, knowing, believing, truthfulness:
I believe or do not believe (pistic statement)
I know or do not know (epistemic statement)
A proposition is true or false (alethic statement)
... then we have the process of verification/falsification - where appropriate, of course...

Love your approach Astrojin!
To name things or be able to describe them is part of our job as astrologers.
We learn a lot of concepts but how does it translate in real life.
Honoré de Balzac, a french writer is the master of description.
In one of his book, can't remember which one, he puts the reader in front of a building and for 2 pages he will describe (and name) all the components of the building. The type of stones, the style, the period of creation, details and at the end you have apprehended a reality, a new reality because you never thought that this building contained so many words to describe it.
One critic said of him 'From each sign, from each printed word comes a stroke of the pen which radiates and winds like a rocket at the congress, and blossoms at the end into a luminous rain of sentences, epithets and nouns underlined, crossed, mixed, crossed out, superimposed; it looks dazzling'.

I have come to believe that when you do a consultation you can describe the language of astrology to your client and focus on 3 different approaches like in a novel.
1) External focus - Here you can have examples of manifestations in real life. It is a description in the literal sense.
2) Internal focus - To create an ambiance with emotions that will ring a bell in your client. This is closer to poetry because the focus is on the spoken word which will light up an internal process.
3) Zero focus - Here you stay on the symbolic level but this language should stay between astrologers but at the same time, we have to get out of this level. This is the difference between studying and understanding.

Be well,
Ouranos

Hi Georgius, I figured that was what you were up to, thanks for clarifying. Just to be clear about my comment, it wasn't directed at you or your and astrojin's back and forth. I just meant to make a broad reflection/poke fun based on the threads questioning of the origin, use of, and validity of terms (or bounds).

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We do not know.
Finally, there are unknown knowns
The knowns
We do not want to know.

(Seely/Rumsfeld)