I think we should try considering astrology as a path.

Hi Kirk,
Briefly (am preparing some material for a workshop tomorrow), I am more inclined to see astrology as an aid to navigating the path.

Bill

Hi all,

I?m happy to see so many well-thought responses in this thread. There are a couple of things that I would like to comment.

Bill wrote: In this respect, astrology has what I imagine is the same root motivation underlying science - the alleviation of existential anxiety associated with the evolution of the capacity for self-reflection, memory and anticipatory awareness through accumulating a body of stored knowledge about nature's processes and structures.

But the big question from the scientific point of view is: how do we know that astrology really brings us accurate body of knowledge about nature?s processes and structures? If astrology is a tool, is it an effective tool? Does the information it gives us really correspond with nature?s processes and structures? Scientific study has so far revealed that no, it doesn?t. From the point of view of established science, astrology tells us nothing that would correspond with tangible, observable reality.

On the other hand we can say (and this is what you?re saying Bill, if I?ve understood correctly), that astrology is a tool for structuring the information and experiences we get, and in that regard it?s like any philosophical system of ideas. The problem with this view is that philosophy doesn?t contain any premises or limitations given by external reality. A philosopher can create an intellectual structure that follows its own internal laws but is not dependent on any preceding course of regulations ? unlike astrology where the positions of the planets do give us a preceding course of regulations.

It?s the same problem than with the idea of astrology as a language. If astrology is a language, who?s communicating what to whom? If I used astrology as a mere language, I could communicate something about myself by saying for example that ?I have Mars in Pisces, that describes me well? (regardless of the real position of Mars when I was born), and you would understand what I mean. But again we have a preceding course of regulations given by us from external reality: my Mars was not in tropical Pisces when I was born but in Aries. It?s not me communicating something to you, but the universe communicating something for both of us, and so we enter neatly into the spiritual view of astrology as divination of the will of God / gods.

In fact Kirk answered my question when he wrote:

Astrology itself tells us what it is and what it's for. Astrology has for centuries been located above the horizon, elevated in the 9th house. Early in the game it was placed in the house of philosophy, dreams, religion, and divination.

Indeed. Astrology itself tells us that it?s religion, not science. Science belongs to the opposite house, the 3rd, where the Moon (=body, mundane things, past --> studying the past --> observing what has happened --> science) has its joy. The Sun has its joy in the 9th house, the house of God, where people study what will be, what is the will of God.

Papretis wrote:Does the information it gives us really correspond with nature?s processes and structures? Scientific study has so far revealed that no, it doesn?t. From the point of view of established science, astrology tells us nothing that would correspond with tangible, observable reality.

Hi Papretis,
There is however some scientific evidence. The studies of Gauquelin were done in a scientific set-up. He used statistical studies of relationships between planets and professions like Saturn and doctors, http://www.tig12.net/spip/Michel-et-Fra ... uelin.html (the page is in French but it shows a graph derived from statistical study. He also found a relationship between Mars and sports(wo)men. Gauquelin was disputed by sceptics but later studies proved that there is some effect, http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/koll1ge.pdf (in English, by Nick Kollerstrom).

How the planets as bodies physically can affect us isn't (yet) discovered by science. The known forces in physics like gravity, electromagnetism are said to be too weak to have any possible effect on human beings or nature. This is a field yet to be explored.

I think there are different perspectives here, because at least two different basic questions are being answered by different people when the the purpose of astrology is discussed:

- What is astrology for?

- Why does astrology exist?

There is real difference here. Since I'm not a philosoper, but a working astrologer, I choose to stick to "what" rather than "why" - other opinions may differ.

I have no idea why Astrology works. I have an engineering background and logically, it doesn't seem like it ought to. Except that it has proven itself to me over and over again over the last four decades to the point where I have given up worrying about the "why"s.

Astrology has given me the key to unlock important buried family secrets for myself and others, all validated later by confrontation with people involved who had been keeping those secrets.

It has given me very helpful medical advice in a situation where doctors were trying to push me into surgery, thanks to the readings of a brilliant Australian-trained Cosmobiologist whose prediction accuracy is the best of any astrologer I have ever known, and I have known quite a few.

It has helped me negotiate the early stages of an important relationship that would have failed completely had I not had a chart in front of me that explained what was going on. That allowed me to speak to the heart of my soon-to-be partner's fears and connect with what was hidden inside his heart, not what was on the surface.

Horary has come through for me--I encountered a very well known practitioner online many years ago and his reading on an important career question, complete with timing stretching over a few years, was 100% accurate.

I even asked a well known astrologer who does elections to tell me when to set out on a long journey in a fraught situation, just to see if that would work, and though the trip was unpleasant (in exactly the way the astrologer said it would be), it could have been a lot worse, and indeed it was for my companion who did not time her departure and spent 24 hours in an airport on her way home.

So I no more feel like debating or defending astrology's worth than I do debating the existence of gravity--which I don't understand any better.

Personally, I mostly use astrology to understand the character and motivations of people I have to interact with, to understand the nature of the energy surrounding a time period and hence get a better feeling for what kinds of actions and activities are likely to be most effective.

When something important is at stake, I pay a professional to read for me. I know my hopes and wishes can blind me to reality if I read for myself, though reading for myself is very helpful in understanding other people's personalities and motivations.

It's been my fate this lifetime to encounter quite a few extremely talented astrologers so I have learned that a truly gifted astrologer can do extremely accurate prediction. But by now I am old enough to wish NOT to know of some of what lies ahead. Especially since prediction does not, in many cases, give any tools to avert what is coming.

To answer the original question, I would say the purpose of astrology is to provide us with insights and/or answers. Obviously this can't be done without the agency of an astrologer, so the effectiveness (or not) of astrology is dependent on the skill of the astrologer.

Bringing it down to a personal level (as others have already done) for me astrology is for predicting the outcomes of sporting events, especially football since this is my particular interest nowadays.

As to how or why astrology works, does this really matter? As long as it appears to work most of the time, that's good enough for me

Same for me, Ficina, but I don't have religious law I need to adhere to prohibiting the use of astrology if it's not a science. And the original poster does. That can make it rather hugely important - at least if you like practising astrology.

All I can go back to is that Islam certainly considered (and most outside the noisy radical fringe) still do consider astrology a science and an important one or astrology texts wouldn't have been amongst the first they translated when they were saving as much of Greek science as possible.

Judaism doesn't consider astrology objectionable except some modern factions have come out to say it's superstitious and not to indulge in it, but that's opinion, it holds no more weight than my opinion, and certainly doesn't refute the use of astrology or the interpretation of the bible astrologically. We'd have to knock out at least a third of our literature to do that, and nobody's willing to press it that far - interestingly, or tellingly as the case may be.

Christianity, being so focussed on free will, has a different view of the matter. As does existentialism, weirdly enough, since both posit free will as an underlying essential.

But Christians used astrology for centuries without being banned for heretics, so it may be safe to assume that not all Christianity sees astrology as A Bad Thing. At one time, at least, the Orthodox were among the most lenient on this issue. How they are now, I don't know.

Papretis wrote: Indeed. Astrology itself tells us that it?s religion, not science. Science belongs to the opposite house, the 3rd, where the Moon (=body, mundane things, past --> studying the past --> observing what has happened --> science) has its joy. The Sun has its joy in the 9th house, the house of God, where people study what will be, what is the will of God.

If you need to martial history on this:

Per Gadbury, astrology is ruled by Mercury in 9, not by 9 exclusively.

Per Al Biruni, Gadbury, Lilly, Ptolemy, and Ramsay, astrolgers are ruled by Mercury. Lilly and Ptolemy sometimes give astrologers to Virgo, and Lilly sometimes gives them to Gemini.

All of the classical rulerships that I can track down, in other words, give astrologers to Mercury or a Mercury ruled sign, whilst clerics fall under Jupiter.

Yes, Mercury is the planetary significator for astrology. Here's a little more concerning the 9th house:

Paulus Alexandrinus (trans. Greenbaum): ?The ninth from the Horoskopos signifies the reckoning of gods, dreams, and living abroad; it pertains to astronomy [the astronomy/astrology connection is well-known]. . .?
?When the Sun has dealings with the star Hermes there, they bring about diviners and dream-interpreters, astrologers, and those who make omens from birds, and absolutely those who participate in mysteries.?

Al Biruni (trans R. Ramesey Wright), Table 461, ?Special Indications of the Houses Peculiar to Nativities? (I'll list only the pertinent significations): religion, piety, fate, attainment of knowledge from the stars and divination, interpretation of dreams and visions.

More recently ? Deborah Houlding assigns astrology to the 9th in her book The Houses (p. 82): ?Where we reach out into the unknown in search of widening our knowledge and understanding. Dreams, visions, inspired thoughts, divination, astrology, mysticism, philosophy, beliefs; the desire to unite with something greater than oneself.?

(Deb, I'm sorry for dragging you out and propping you up in my shop window, but it was just too good to leave unmentioned.)


But we've been looking specifically for 'astrology'. Once upon a time the old guys would have understood astrology to be included in any mention of philosophy.

Still, clergy goes to 9, Jupiter, and once in a while Sag by most reckonings, and astrologers go to Mercury or a sign related to Mercury.

Astrologers do not equal priests in this scheme, so if the canonical objection is that they do, well, there's no changing canon law, but astrologers have not historically classified themselves as such. Which may or may not help - just pointing it out in case it does.

The quote from Deb in my previous post states well the impression I've received from looking through various sources concerning the 9th house and astrology. It seems pretty well established that astrology is located in the 9th house, and I now have an even stronger feel for the rising and lifting movement from the ASC to the 9th house. The movement from the ASC is past and away from the 10th house struggles of actions and worldly achievements ? with its square aspect to the ASC ('imperfect enmity') ? and on to the 9th house trine ('perfect friendship') with its deity, religion and philosophy. I do think there is important symbolism in the 'crossover', moving beyond the Midheaven into another quadrant.

It looks like the ancient creators of astrology knew exactly what they were doing when they placed it in the house variously called Theos, Deus, God, Pietas, and Religion [Or did it already exist in the Universal Mind?]. This is why talk of astrology as simply a tool made by and for humans and referring to oneself as only a working astrologer rather than a philosopher gives me cold shivers. I truly do think that such a widespread and common belief regarding astrology is at the heart of many problems concerning the understanding, practice and development of astrology today. And before the traditional names of the 9th house I listed above provoke accusations of religious coercion let's keep in mind the close connection of religion and philosophy. But, truth be told, these days we are supposed to be strictly secular in an environment or gathering that isn't specifically of a stated religious nature. Right there is a huge difference between our times and the earlier eras of astrology that we so eagerly consult for help in our studies.

I'm neither western nor Christian, Kirk, and the point is that Papretis' practise of astrology is being impeded by church law, and if I followed his post correctly, he does not wish to leave the church or to be put under a ban of excommunication. My personal interest in this is that I dislike religious law telling people that they cannot pursue enquiries into areas of philosophies or sciences on pain of persecution or discrimination.

One of those points of church law is that astrologers see themselves as priests of God. I don't pretend to know the whole of it because I'm far from expert in canon law, but it may be a point for consideration that ASTROLOGERS do not classify themselves as priests, or at least historically have not done so. Astrology - 9. Astrologers - MERCURY. Important difference.

Which is, perhaps, of some help. Or perhaps not. Again, Christian law is not my strong field.

But Kirk, if you insist that astrologers and astrology are one in the same thing - I think you're reverting to the tool analogy that you were opposing a few posts back.