Juan wrote:...
This means that in the specific case of natal astrology, the one individual moment charted never represents what is happening in the sky at that one specific moment in the life of an individual, except the actual moment of birth in a limited way. The widespread idea that Astrology's basic principle is the direct correspondence between what happens on earth or in our lives and what happens in the sky is therefore contradicted by the practice of Natal Astrology, and therefore cannot be used to explain or describe the theoretical basis of Astrology.

Juan

That's right. All it describes is the fundamental interpretive rule (in the mathematical sense) of the system.

- Ed

I will say something because young students can read all this crap and they can believe it and be badly affected by it.

Juan wrote:.
The previous post refers to the effects of ignoring celestial latitude and ignoring the effect of parallax, which is how astrologers work 95% of the time.

Modern astrological software automatically correct these and 99.9% of modern astrologers use astrological software in their daily work, so why you don't better waste your time exploring the errors of medical technology? you would definitely find it more interesting...

Anyway these variations as the parallax are so tiny that they are of almost irrelevant astrological significance.

Juan wrote:.
But the actual situation in the real world is even more complicated. If, having calculated the time of the conjunction in zodiacal topocentric longitude instead of the standard geocentric longitude, I look at the sky and ...

A standard birth chart must be set up for geocentric longitude, so what you explain here is irrelevant again.

Birth charts synchronistically mirror the sky at birth, they take into account astrological factors of interest for to analyze this, all other physical factors not related to this purpose are of not interest in astrology.

Your approach and critic of the system of transits is too simplistic as your reasoning usually is, astrology is based in units of time and it's technique is much more complex than the physical meaning that you seem to be obsessed with give to it and reduce it to it.

And about physically modelling synchronicity this is as absurd as to try to physically model relativity or gravity... These should be scientifically inferred instead.

In conclusion, a lot of deliberately-generated confusion and nothing interesting to read in this thread.

Sonia

soniah wrote:Modern astrological software automatically correct these and 99.9% of modern astrologers use astrological software in their daily work, so why you don't better waste your time exploring the errors of medical technology? you would definitely find it more interesting... Anyway these variations as the parallax are so tiny that they are of almost irrelevant astrological significance.

About the first point: no, modern astrological software does not correct automatically for parallax, unless you configure it to do it. Correction for parallax is almost never done because it is not a standard procedure, and when done by a small minority, it is considered experimental.

The correction for the distorting effects of ignoring celestial latitude is never done. There are some interesting experimental alternatives to ecliptic longitude that yield a more accurate representation of a planet's real position in the sky, but these are as a rule never used when drawing horoscopes, they are even more experimental than correcting for parallax.

The second point: parallax is negligible in the case of the planets but everybody knows (or almost everybody, you didn't) that it can become very significant in the case of the Moon, as I illustrated in the example.

A standard birth chart must be set up for geocentric longitude, so what you explain here is irrelevant again.

The whole point of the post was to illustrate how relevant it is to discuss what happens when we use geocentric longitudes, particularly in the case of the Moon. It is so relevant that your dogmatic assertion that the birth chart mirrors the physical reality of the sky has been shown to be false.

Birth charts synchronistically mirror the sky at birth,...

You keep repeating this as a dogma of faith even though it has been shown with an example why it is insufficient and in many cases false. This is as a matter of fact and not just personal opinion. I provided a more accurate or realistic description where instead of "mirrors" one uses the mathematical concept of "reduction" (of or to coordinates). If we don't discuss the epistemological implications of working with this reduction to discrete mathematical coordinates --which is what astrologers do-- we won't be able to understand what Astrology is or isn't.

Your approach and critic of the system of transits is too simplistic as your reasoning usually is,

If you believe that I am criticizing the "system of transits", it is because you have not understood my approach.

I am criticizing nothing of standard astrological practice or techniques, I'm only trying to understand better what these practices or techniques are and how they work, and how they DON'T work. But I do criticize and challenge openly and directly some of the most taken for granted theoretical assumptions of astrologers about their practice and the nature of Astrology, and about the techniques they use, because in many cases --like yours-- they are demonstrably false.

The reason why Bill and I are challenging those assumptions so strongly is not out of panic as you have expressed, but because they are typical of the astrological establishment, and being so demonstrably false, are keeping our theoretical understanding of Astrology in a hopeless state of stagnation and confusion.

The clearest illustration of this confusion is when the points we are making are labelled as "opinions" so that "ok, nice, I disagree and also have my own opinions". Personally, my interest in writing about this is to show that even though we all have our personal opinions and preferences, it is also possible to separate what is mere opinion from what is demonstrable fact.

And about physically modelling synchronicity this is as absurd as to try to physically model relativity or gravity... These should be scientifically inferred instead. - Sonia

I'm not talking of modeling synchronicity physically (please look at what I was replying in the first place). Both relativity and gravity have been modeled physically in multiple ways with micrometric accuracy (e.g. in the equations of planetary motion). As Bill and Yuzuru have said using different words, you are "orinando fuera del tarro".

Juan

Ed F wrote:

Juan wrote:... The widespread idea that Astrology's basic principle is the direct correspondence between what happens on earth or in our lives and what happens in the sky is therefore contradicted by the practice of Natal Astrology, and therefore cannot be used to explain or describe the theoretical basis of Astrology.

That's right. All it describes is the fundamental interpretive rule (in the mathematical sense) of the system.
- Ed

I'm not sure exactly what you meant here. Could you explain a little more?

If I were to summarize the whole concept I would put it like this:

As we have seen, astrologers work with abstract mathematical coordinates that are independent of real events happening in the sky at the time to which these coordinates refer (e.g., transits, progressions, directions, even the radix chart itself), and these coordinates are plotted against cultural classification systems (signs, houses, dignities, aspects...) that have been geometrically modeled after celestial motions but which do not exist in nature.

There is nothing wrong with any of this, it is simply what astrologers do and have been doing for centuries. As was expressed by Ren?: "We just have to be aware of what we are doing and why."

This awareness, however, is seldom found among astrologers, and nowhere is this more evident than in the idea maintained by many that they are dealing with actual celestial events. A simple examination of the way astrologers use their charts, as I have tried to do here, shows that this is a fallacy.

An "astrological factor" or event is defined by discrete celestial coordinates that are assigned qualities and meanings through an elaborate system of cultural categories established by convention (signs, houses, dignities, aspects...); with these categories and some simple imaginative canonical temporal manipulations (e.g. transits), astrologers build a model that is used to establish or derive meaning about any concrete moment of the past, the present, or the future.

Bill has suggested that the realization of these facts can augment the gap between Science and Astrology, but I think it does the opposite by showing (potentially) that horoscopic Astrology is nothing more than an elaborate model-building mathematical tool based on a culturally idiosyncratic analogical manipulation of heavenly motions, a tool that in the right hands can be very sharp and effective.

(NOTE: I'm putting aside here momentarily the discussion of the problem of scientific testing and "proof".)

Most astrologers will perceive this notion as too radical and will reject it because it deprives Astrology of its mystery, of the awe-inspiring experience of the heavens... even though what they really do has almost nothing to do with it.

This rejection is mostly for ideological reasons, not because what I am describing is inaccurate or flawed. It may very well be flawed or inaccurate, but I want to know where and why, in terms that can be friendly and constructively discussed.

Juan

My point was really simple. In mathematics, which is a strictly formal activity, when one would like to use them, one assigns its symbols to some phenomena, then draws conclusions about the phenomena based on the formal mathematical relationships.

In astrology we do something similar. The act of assigning a time and place to a phenomena (a person etc) is the most common act of interpretation in the mathematical sense that is used in astrology. It sets the mapping(s) of our charts (models) to what we want to study in the real world.

That's why I called it the primary interpretive rule, often stated "as above, so below" (and vice-versa).

- Ed

Juan wrote:It is so relevant that your dogmatic assertion that the birth chart mirrors the physical reality of the sky has been shown to be false.

Oh no, I am not dogmatic at all

I never said that birth charts reflects the physical sky, but "the sky" with all its astrological factors that are of interest in astrology.

Astrology is not interested in measure physically the sky, this is the business of astronomers instead, Do you see how confused and crazy you are?

anyway this is becoming a discussion in circle, so I leave the circle for you, what I had to say is already said, and said enough.

you can continue confusing everything, maybe someday you achieve to have some few disciples following you.

Bye bye

Ed F wrote:In mathematics, which is a strictly formal activity, when one would like to use them, one assigns its symbols to some phenomena, then draws conclusions about the phenomena based on the formal mathematical relationships.
In astrology we do something similar. The act of assigning a time and place to a phenomena (a person etc) is the most common act of interpretation in the mathematical sense that is used in astrology. It sets the mapping(s) of our charts (models) to what we want to study in the real world.- Ed

Thanks, Ed. Looks very clear now.

The first step of horoscopic astrology is this assignment of a chart to a specific phenomenon. An astrological chart is a frozen moment of time, an instantaneous snapshot, while phenomena are happening in time, they are flowing, developing, becoming, so astrologers have to "cherry pick" one instant of time in the life of the phenomenon, they have to decide *when* to draw the chart, what M. E. Jones called in his book on Horary "charting the pertinent moment".

Here Horary and Natal are no different and in both cases the moment is chosen using the metaphor of birth or of "apparition"; the chart is made for the time when the phenomenon we want or need to model is more clearly perceived or recognized to have started, when it appeared or was born.

It is interesting to observe how astrologers take for granted so easily and naturally that the moment to draw the chart should be the moment of birth. This is assumed automatically and mechanically, as a kind of natural necessity. Why is that? Why do we think so strongly that, if we want to model a human life by means of an astrological chart, we should make it for the moment of birth? Why do we see a birth chart and say "I got you!"?

This question may sound silly, specially to those who think of Astrology in terms of influences, but it contains the key to why and how (in this case: natal) Astrology works.

The funny thing is that it is not that difficult to answer, all we have to do is look at the moment of birth and discern or separate its formal or structural characteristics in comparison to other moments in life. What does the moment of birth have that other moments in life don't? Are there other moments in life that have characteristics similar to those of the moment of birth? Why do we choose the moment of birth among other possible moments?

Since Astrology (Horoscopics) has nothing to do with cause and effect, precedence in time or linearity, being the first in temporal sequence, is not necessary, what is required is that the model be "isomorphic", that it has morphological symmetry with the phenomenon it is charting.

From a perspective of Astrology based on isomorphism (analogic or "parabolic"thinking), the temporal link between phenomena has nothing to do with the compulsion of cause and effect but with morphic concordance (symmetry) and harmonic or mathematical resonance. In this light the astrological principle behind techniques such as Davison relationship charts, converse transits, Uranian Astrology, and the empirical effectiveness of death charts as well as of the "wrong chart" (as Deborah pointed out), can be easily explained.

The principle behind converse transits also makes a lot of sense: to model time in both (opposite) directions before and after the moment of birth, and likewise to model or chart the phenomenon not from the moment of birth alone but also from the moment of death, and like the princinciple behind Davison relationship charts, from the middle point in time between birth and death.

Juan