Skyscript Astrology Forum

james_m wrote:hi lakewind,

i just get uncomfortable with others offering viewpoints that seem like a bag of ready mix cement that is permanent and unchangeable..

Hello James (M), Waybread, and Lakewind...

Interesting discussion, we have here !

First of all, I have not read the book, The House Connection, by Karen Hammaker-Zontag, so I cannot comment, here, except that intercepted houses are a very common and frequent occurance, esp. when using Placidus houses for latitudes 50 degrees or higher, and therefore, there is nothing wrong at all about using dual rulerships to describe the natal houses, nor is it a ground-breaking idea ?

To my good friend, James M, my response is this: The very reason that we have "bags of ready mix cement" (as you describe?) is that it panders to the overall western (and North American) consumer craving for "McDonald's hamburger-like" astrology products and services...and the consumer demand for such services, as soon as possible ?

That would explain why Sun-Sign astrology, as superficial and meaningless as it is, is still highly popular, today, and is still followed by millions of consumers, world-wide...

Meanwhile, much of today's modern psychological-need astrology is packaged and marketed... much like a Big Mac or Filet of Fish sandwich...

Like at McDonald's, astrologer counsellors put in just the right amount of salt, sugar, and fat, into their products and services... to push human buttons and to maximize and whet the human appetite...and therefore, also, maximizing personal sales...?

The MAIN difference is that (unlike at McDonald's) many professional astrologers (such as this writer?) also engage in extensive pro bono work to help out the working poor and all those who could not ordinarily afford to hire a professional astrologer... ?

Whenever you go to McDonald's, you still must pay and pay for your hamburger and fries...

Fortunately, corporations like McDonald's also have charity, much to its credit, also does extensive corporate sponsorships, such as sporting events (like the 2012 London Olympics) and also lesser known community events, so there are always two sides to every story...

Hello Waybread:

Astrology is, indeed, a subjective medium, since most modern astrology is essentially an art-science and therefore, most artistic performances (and we could argueably call the interpretation of the natal chart, a performance?) tend to be subjective in nature...

However, subjectivity is not limited to astrology. Psychology, the brother of psychological need astrology, is also highly subjective and like astrology, employs the usage to trait words to help describe individuals and situations.

Trait words are essentially adjectives... used to describe people, such as "all Aquarians are cold and aloof" or "all Aquarians are sado-machochists."

Especially if they've got Venus retrograde, natally ! LOL

The main danger with trait words, is that professional counsellors and astrologers tend to over-rely on them, leading to very negative and even harmful stereotyping...

For example, Sun in Aquarians are "cold and aloof"...

" Asian people tend to speak poor English. "

" Blacks are good at running and most sports. "

So, yes, I have now kind of figured out what James M. is suggesting, here, and I do agree that there IS an inherent HERD mentality and thinking (in the astrological community?) which is also a TRAP of sorts and is very easy to fall into...and, with all of the pitfalls that James M. suggests, such as overly rigid thinking and basically, the inability to step outside of the box...or evolve...

However, James, the herd mentality (or joining the bandwagon?) is not limited to astrology, but can also be found in the music business, in sports, broadcasting and in virtually every walk of life !


best regards,


R.J. Smith

James_m

I've not read the book either but my understanding of your posts is that this book is just an example and not that important.

I think the entire discussion can be summed up by accepting the following premises:
There are no objectively right answers (at least not yet discovered).
You cannot separate the astrology from the astrologer.
There are as many forms of astrology as there are astrologers.

If we accept this then we'll stop attaching to the idea that there is a 'correct' or 'true' astrology, which suggests that there is only one form of astrology which has validity - whether that suggestion is that a particular house system is the only correct one, or whether there is only one approach to house rulerships. Instead what we can know is that there is one approach that is right...for us.

Until such time that we approach the art of astrology from the paradigm of a post-newtonian cause and effect mentality then all such questions are inherently flawed within their premise - instead it would be better to see astrological approaches more like a philosophy. Different people will attach to particular philosophies and it is no surprise that their astrology will be a direct extension of their thinking - so the astrology cannot be separated from the astrologer. Until such time that astrology is proven or subject to the empirical 'cause and effect' scientific method then all we have are paradigms and philosphies that we feel are appropriate to us - things that we've seen work ourselves.



Now I say this, but we can also examine historical truths - we can show that perhaps only one house system was used in a given context and infer from this that perhaps mistakes were made later down the road. And so give more weight to the argument that that particular house system is better for that approach, however these are arguments by historical authority rather than by empirical evidence. If we attach to needing scientific style proof for our astrology we should probably just give up now. In the meantime it is acceptable, and perhaps the only approach we have available to us, that we just use what we ourselves see work and accept that other people have their own paradigms, listen to why they use what they use and see if we can learn anything from them.

hi rj and paul,

thanks for taking the time to read this post and share your thoughts on astrology and some of the things i and others have said. it helps to hear others views on how they process all of this.. obviously you folks are like me - into astrology.

paul - i especially like your posts and attitude here at skyscript and really enjoy reading what you have to say. i think for me i sometimes feel like i fall through some crack in it all and don't have the degree of objectivity or detachment necessary to keep a healthy perspective on what i am doing. the fact i can consciously say this might imply i have a degree of ability to detach from my own view, but it is tricky and i watch how others of different degrees of knowledge or fluidity with astrology rationalize why something means something. i call it a rationalization cause that is what it sometimes looks like to me.. i dunno. maybe someone sees something special from a particular angle that i haven't been exposed to from and it becomes a motive for me to look deeper into something.

astrology is very much like art in that everyone has their own way of doing it, or is in the process of finding their own way to do it. one can latch onto a strong voice or leader in the community and go with the approach they take, but i think ultimately just like in music - you have to find your own voice.

thanks 2 you both for the conversation and perspective.

james_m wrote:
so, i find myself constantly being challenged by others belief systems around astrology which mostly seem to be so that i can be very clear on why i would hold to a particular belief different from others.

Consider. Do scientists believe in scientific theories?

No, absolutely not. The philosophy which underpins "science" is called Logical Positivism, which (briefly) states that any physical theory is an approximation with only limited validity. Too, if the theory and the experience of the real world (the experiment) disagree, it is because the theory is wrong.

This is how science advances. Somebody does some measurements and formulates a theory to predict the experimental results. Somebody does some more accurate experiments, or experiments in a different context (different temperature, say) and and finds the theory does not predict the new experimental results, so the theory is modified in a consistent way so that it does. That is the scientific method.

Scientists know that the theories and methods they use are useful and describe the world reasonably well, but they also know that sooner or later, the theories they teach their students in universities will be proved wrong.

How can you "believe" in something that is constantly changing and is dynamic with time, responding to increased knowledge and experience like science? You can't. In contrast, the pantheon of gods which form the basis of the world's religions are unchanging and timeless. And if some religious reformer wants to change the nature of the god in even a tiny way, the result is invariably a schism, where the believers split into two groups, one carrying on the old beliefs and the other group taking on a new set of beliefs. That is not the way science works and this is the basic difference between science and religion. Religion is about a belief in a supernatural being. Scientists don't believe in anything.

Let us look at this word "belief" for a moment. What is a belief? Here is a definition:- "A belief is an idea or proposition which is accepted without any evidence to substantiate it."

So, do astrologers believe in astrology? I would say, no. The history of astrology starts with the Babylonians some five thousand years ago where the priest/astrologers start looking for correlations between events happening here on earth and events happening in the cosmos. They establish principles and properties for the planets and they test to see if the fortunes of the king and his court is mirrored by the events in the sky. If the principles work, they keep them. If they do not work, they ditch the idea and derive a principle which does correlate happenings here on earth with happenings in the cosmos.

As time progresses over the next five thousand years, astrology changes and becomes richer in a consistent way to correlate happenings here on earth in finer detail and with greater precision than before. There are no schisms, no great wars, merely the continuous testing of the ideas and predictions of astrology against what is actually observed here on earth.

If this sounds like the scientific method I outlined above, that is exactly right. Astrology is a science, the first science. It is not a religion and it is not a belief system.

Note that I use the word "correlations" above, not "explanations". There is nothing in astrology which offers any explanation whatsoever about the mechanism by which the movements of the planets can predict happenings here on earth, and astrologers need never concern themselves with that.

This has a parallel in physics, where quantum mechanics gives us the most successful, accurate and complete description of the atomic world we know. But Shroedinger did not invent his equation to "understand" or "explain" atomic physics, but merely to describe it. Physicists do not concern themselves with why quantum mechanics works. Similarly, General Relativity gives an excellent description of the relationship between space, matter and time - but it gives us no idea what gravity actually is.

Geoffrey

hi geoffrey

thanks for sharing your perspective here. i like the manner in which you have used science to suggest that it isn't beliefs that guide astrologers, but more observation and that when a better theory comes along astrologers might replace one theory with one more in line with what they observe. i think if this was actually the case there would be no uncertainty which house system to use and this is just one example of the many conundrums that face astrology. this is also why i think it comes down to what a person wants to believe.

maybe there is a better way for me to communicate this by analogy. there are those who have been following astrology for a long time and those new to astrology that need to learn and start somewhere with choosing or not a particular house system - to continue with my original example. i see it like trying on a set of clothes to see how they fit. it seems we can't all fit into the same set of clothes and each one of us needs to find what best suits our particular outline. hopefully our use of different astro techniques, ideas or approaches to astrology is based fully on observation, but my own impression is there is a large degree of herd mentality among astrologers as well as in any other area of human activity.. it would be nice to think we can remove the subjective element which i mostly think of as human nature, and have a system based entirely on observation only, but it is not my observation, or - i note how many astrologers can view the same chart quite differently and come up with astro rationale for their particular use of one system over another.. thus, i maintain beliefs are very much a part of modern day astrology whether the person is practicing traditional or modern or up the yin yang astrology.. it really doesn't matter, as it all comes back to holding to a particular belief and that this is probably the area most folks are unwilling to examine or consider -a 12th house blind spot perhaps that is a silent influence on the more headstrong energy of the ascendant to use some astro imagery..

perhaps i don't completely understand your position, but don't let that detract from continuing on with a response to mine here.. i continue to be curious about how others view astrology, and not just the nuts and bolts of it, but a bigger view outside the purely technical is something i am interested in too..

James,

You might enjoy this chat with Cochrane, Forrest and Terry discussing where Astrology is in 2012. Unless you have already seen it ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DBBHA305AI

thanks nixx!

i had seen that and found it difficult to hear properly, but did my best to listen.. i was able to hear cochrane the best and enjoyed what i could pick up.. i sent the fellow who made it a message saying it would be good if the audio was louder... both terry and forrest were hard to hear. kelly lee phillips did mention he was going to be putting some other video up as well, but i don't know that he has yet.. if you see any other one pop up, keep us posted. thanks! james

I find if you use headphones it comes through better and ignore the wobbly visuals.

Cochrane was echoing some of your thoughts on this thread. You're not alone!