Hi Ficina

Why do you think there has to be a point? These experiences are sufficient within themselves, so why do they need a point?

I can only answer with:

If you are content to accept that earthly life is the sum total of physical existence, then so be it. But it is conceivable that the spirit which inhabits your present earthly body has existed before, with not necessarily that (same) facet of spirit.

...and appreciate that you may indeed belong to the first group. It's immatertial really whether we believe the same thing or not - in that I think that some people seek a structure within which to relate their life experiences, others don't. Sometimes when finding an idea it relates to the heart whispers "yes!" - for others perhaps it never does, or at least does so differently.

But I like TS' response nonetheless

but for what it?s worth, belief extends such points beyond the span of one life ? probably has something to do with re-cycling.

Hi TS

Thank you very much for finally clearing up the fatum root of fate and fatal!

I think having this traced back to speak, Gods and Moirae (Greek name for the Fates) or the Fates - I am at last happy that the "bad" reputation of fate is associated with the Fates since they were apparently feared by all other Gods and that this probably comes from Atropos who cut the thread of life and thus caused death. However, personally I was quite surprised at this negative connotation, since I always felt it could go either way.

Where ?fate? is concerned, there is a difference between ?resignation? and ?acceptance? ?

I think this is a fine but important distinction.

Thanks once again for hunting down the etymology - I can finally put it to rest.


Hi Sue

You beat me by a couple of hours! I found and read Patrick Curry's address at lunch time and made a mental note to post the link!

Having taken a swipe at both science and spiritualism, he must have been very cute standing at the end as the "enchanted, mystical astrologer" There must have been a lot of fun in the delivery and no doubt it was a very entertaining address in addition to provoking thought. (The mind boggles at Ameirake being rescued by a duck! I'll have to look that one up). But I would endorse your recommendation - it's worth reading.

Sungem

Hi Deb,

From your description, it seems like the horary techniques you use are a bit different than what I learned, because it seems you are doing some counselling instead of just answering a question.

The horary revealed where the real relevance of the issue lay, and that?s one of the reasons why I don?t consider it terribly important how the question is phrased.

My impression of horary is that it is more deterministic than natal. The essential dignities of the planets, and the ?benefic? or ?malefic? properties of the planets come to the foreground of the technique. To me that always seemed to invite a fatalistic attitude, but maybe that is incorrect. A natal chart together with progressions and transits shows not only the issue of current focus but also the developmental stages of the individual, so that the issues have a meaningful context.

The bottom line is that I maintain horary is all about empowering people and helping them to make effective choices for themselves. As far as I?m concerned no other branch of astrology is anywhere near as revealing at those special moments when you get someone who really needs a consultation and is ready to open themselves up to a new perspective.

I would have to take exception to the last sentence. In my view, anyone who takes the trouble to consult face to face with an astrologer, whether horary or natal, is extraordinarily motivated and ready to open up to a new perspective.

If horary is about helping people make effective choices through their free will, then there must be some flexibility in horary. If it is similar to natal in that respect, then an astrologer would try to comprehend and empathize with the client?s values, explain the individual?s stages in a life, explore for blockages through examining attitudes and attachments, and then suggest several interpretations as to goals (destinations) that would help the client. The client would choose a destiny that they recognize would provide a level of comfort, challenge, and satisfaction. I tend to think of these destinies as realistic skills to be developed.

I think the natal chart is essential for these techniques and I?m not sure that astrologers can identify the guidelines for all of these things in a horary chart. The goal for the astrologer is not so much to open up the client, although this certainly happens in most cases, but to provide the stepping-stones to a better life. The person seeks the astrologer to go beyond their current limits, and the thing that will take them safely there is to become educated about the exercise their free will within context of their personal gifts and limitations, which have to do with fate (the natural laws governing the motions of the planets).

Sungem,

Doesn?t ascribing fate to a ?supernatural power? recognize that natural laws are outside a person?s control?

I think this may be stretching things a bit to make the dictionary seem like it is correct. (You might have guessed by now that I don?t take dictionary definitions as the ultimate authority but only as a tool.)

Supernatural power is not natural law, unless you simply mean that one does not exclude the other. Where are the supernatural powers in the modern world? Who among us, other than apparently the OED, really believes that spirits, ghosts, or gods are causing things that are beyond our control? When a thunderstorm gathers in the sky, is it the wrath of Thor, or is it what we learned about weather in school? Things beyond our control are usually ascribed to natural processes, which are studied in science. The OED should get with it!

This suggests to me that scientists have become the modern day arbiters of fate (things outside of our control). Who are the arbiters of supernatural fate? The clergy? Are they the ones making the inscriptions on Saturn?s Tablets of Fate? I think the scientists are doing a better job of inscribing the Tablets of Fate with universal laws. So I would say that the OED definition as it stands now has become a misconception. Unless we are going to revise the concept of fate to mean something else (something we control?), or abandon fate to history, then the dictionary description of ?supernatural power? driving fate needs to be replaced with ?natural law? driving fate. QED

The Law is perfect in its operation. Effect always follows cause with mathematical precision. No individual has the power to alter by one hair?s breadth the sequence of cause and effect. That which is reaped must be that which is sown. . .

Although the law of karma (you reap what you sow) is something I share a belief in, it is possibly not as mathematically precise as natural laws. At least I would say the causes and outcomes are a bit harder to track than math, or there would be a math for it!

For example, the fire was caused by faulty wiring and human negligence. The cause has already split. The negligence was caused by dispirited employees, whose malaise was caused by inadequate compensation, and a bad review of the product; split again. The inadequate compensation was caused by the greedy owner and poor production due to bad weather; split. The owner?s greed was caused by insecurity. The insecurity was caused by? Well you see this can go on and the splits can become innumerable beyond reckoning. Often in the judicial system the karma stops at the person who was lying or covering up. But the lying and covering up was caused by something else that the court is not very interested in.

The fate arbiters of science have a powerful grip on the laws of cause and effect, and I don?t think astrology should even go there, especially because astrology developed without causality in the scientific sense. The thing that?s left is synchronicity and this has to be it. Not Jung?s synchronicity, which applies only to an individual?s interpretation of symbolism, but rather to observed and shared meanings. These observed and shared meanings are a bit fuzzy, at least in natal astrology, and this is where the free will enters into the picture. You choose among those fuzzy meanings the outcome that you desire. You make that meaning your goal and it becomes your destiny. There are many goals in life as there are many destinies in life.

KennethM

Hi Kenneth

You might have guessed by now that I don?t take dictionary definitions as the ultimate authority but only as a tool.

Actually, neither do I, however I find it a useful reference for the ?generally accepted interpretation? whenever I find I either don?t know or differ in some way. However if I'm going to accept as a tool, then I can't discard it simply because I don?t like the answer it gives.

Sungem: Doesn?t ascribing fate to a ?supernatural power? recognize that natural laws are outside a person?s control?

Kenneth: Supernatural power is not natural law, unless you simply mean that one does not exclude the other.

That will do since at the end of that post, I equated fate with natural law which is outside an individual?s control. However I think our basic problem may again be one of definition.

Things beyond our control are usually ascribed to natural processes, which are studied in science.

Apples (and everything else) did not float before the ?law? of gravity.

The phenomenon existed before science articulated a theory to prove its existence.

I call the phenomenon a natural law. It may be that you call the theory a natural law.

This suggests to me that scientists have become the modern day arbiters of fate (things outside of our control).

No they are not. They simply describe it. Apples did not float. Scientists didn?t create it, they discovered it and then created a theory to explain it ? they are not the same thing to me. However, scientists continue to discover natural laws (and create theories to explain them) for which we are very grateful.

I think the scientists are doing a better job of inscribing the Tablets of Fate with universal laws.

You are of course, entitled to your opinion. However the Tablets of Fate were presumably already inscribed with natural laws. Who said they needed rewriting?

So I would say that the OED definition as it stands now has become a misconception. Unless we are going to revise the concept of fate to mean something else (something we control?), or abandon fate to history, then the dictionary description of ?supernatural power? driving fate needs to be replaced with ?natural law? driving fate. QED

Believe me Kenneth, if I could put flashing neon lights around this I would!

However, on the one hand you say

Although the law of karma (you reap what you sow) is something I share a belief in, it is possibly not as mathematically precise as natural laws.

You see I think it is a natural law and therefore very precise - and on the other you say

Often in the judicial system the karma stops at the person who was lying or covering up. But the lying and covering up was caused by something else that the court is not very interested in.

For example, the fire was caused by faulty wiring and human negligence. The cause has already split.

Cause produces effect produces cause produces effect. If a cause produces multiple effects and I think they do continually, since how I react to something which involves another person produces an effect for me as well as the other person. Then each branch will proceed with cause and effect. I think you?ll agree there is more than one lot of cause and effect taking place at any given time in the world.

The fate arbiters of science have a powerful grip on the laws of cause and effect, and I don?t think astrology should even go there, especially because astrology developed without causality in the scientific sense.

I ?m not even going to go there.

The thing that?s left is synchronicity and this has to be it.

Whaaat? Oh Kenneth, puleeese, - gimme a break!!!

I think I'm finally defeated

(Just as an aside I still don?t believe fate is always ?bad?, I still believe it can be either positive or negative even though related to The Fates. For Clotho brings the joy of a new life, Atropos brings the inevitability of death ? but it?s the schizophrenic in the middle, Lachesis that I?d be most concerned about ? this ninny can?t even measure two threads the same length!)

Cheers
Sungem

Hi Sungem,

However if I'm going to accept (dictionary definition) as a tool, then I can't discard it simply because I don?t like the answer it gives.

If the tool (the dictionary definition) doesn't work any more and it's broken (doesn't have any relevant meaning in modern usage), then yes, people discard it. It becomes an anachronism and falls into disuse. People generally like tools that work. Language and individual words need to change to reflect changing values, and values change over time.

The definition of fate is a good example of this. Fate would be more useful if it had an update. Things that are beyond our control (fate) in the modern world are more a question of natural laws than they are of supernatural powers. This replacement has already happened.

The resistance to this concept is because we would have to concede that science is actually the study of fate (things beyond our control = natural laws). It's simply a question of restoring consistency between current values and language. It may be difficult to get our heads around this modest suggestion because we have lived with the inconsistency for so long.

KennethM

Point taken. However I still think there's a lot of good stuff in there and it's still one of my favourite books.

Language and individual words need to change to reflect changing values, and values change over time.

I think that's why it's in continual update. Maybe they just missed fate this time round.
Thank you Kenneth for helping to stretch my mind and wrap it around the subject of FFW.

Oh come on! You can't concede as easily as that. I was expecting more. It's just starting to get interesting.

Doesn't anyone think I'm stretching things too far?

KennethM

Aw shucks....just call me a lover not a fighter

Hi again Sungem

I can only answer with:

If you are content to accept that earthly life is the sum total of physical existence, then so be it. But it is conceivable that the spirit which inhabits your present earthly body has existed before, with not necessarily that (same) facet of spirit.

...and appreciate that you may indeed belong to the first group.

Actually I don't belong to either group. Both are merely theories, neither capable of proof or disproof. We won't know for sure until we snuff it

It's immatertial really whether we believe the same thing or not

Or, indeed, whether we feel the need to believe anything at all.

- in that I think that some people seek a structure within which to relate their life experiences, others don't.

And still others who spend a long time seeking, then eventually realise that there is no point/meaning/purpose to life (or life experiences) whereupon they breathe a sigh of relief and just relax and live it.

Sometimes when finding an idea it relates to the heart whispers "yes!" - for others perhaps it never does, or at least does so differently.

Exactly!

But I like TS' response nonetheless

but for what it?s worth, belief extends such points beyond the span of one life ? probably has something to do with re-cycling.

LOL! Visions of a soul recycling plant somewhere "out there". Reminds me a little of Plato's Myth of Er. Have you read that? Great fun!

Cheers,
Fi

Hi Ficina

Actually I don't belong to either group...
Or, indeed, whether we feel the need to believe anything at all.

Interesting - if you don't believe we live until we die - and you don't think there's anything else... what's that called? An interesting standpoint, to be sure... self-sufficiency!

And still others who spend a long time seeking, then eventually realise that there is no point/meaning/purpose to life (or life experiences) whereupon they breathe a sigh of relief and just relax and live it.

Perhaps there are others who can also relax and live life within a belief structure, perhaps in fact the structure allows the relaxing?

How does that saying go? "The heart has its reasons, whereof reason knows nothing". And this includes, one supposes, a lack of response as well.

LOL! Visions of a soul recycling plant somewhere "out there".

Absolutely! And yes, it's an apt story!

We won't know for sure until we snuff it

Ain't it the truth!

if you don't believe we live until we die - and you don't think there's anything else... what's that called? An interesting standpoint, to be sure... self-sufficiency!

How about immortality? Seriously though, I'm not saying there's nothing else - there may well be. What I'm saying is I don't know and personally don't feel the need to "believe". The reincarnation/recycling theory certainly makes a lot of sense and it will be interesting to find out, eventually, if it is correct.

Perhaps there are others who can also relax and live life within a belief structure, perhaps in fact the structure allows the relaxing?

Good point.

How does that saying go? "The heart has its reasons, whereof reason knows nothing".

I think that saying is usually applied to someone who falls in love with the "wrong" person. So are you saying your belief structure is irrational?

And this includes, one supposes, a lack of response as well.

Not quite sure what you mean there.

Hi Ficina

How about immortality?

Love it! (Not sure I?d want to do it ? but I love the answer just the same)

Seriously though, I'm not saying there's nothing else - there may well be. What I'm saying is I don't know and personally don't feel the need to "believe".

If you have ever been in a crisis situation (mentally, physically or emotionally ? let?s leave spiritual out of it for the moment) which appeared to be, or you thought was, due to circumstances outside and beyond your control, and still never searched for a meaning beyond the hardcore reality which you had to face down and deal with ? then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. For you.

We all have to live on this earth, and deal with the realities of this life. Personally when things happened that weren?t in my game plan, I just kept asking, and in many ways am still asking, ?why??

To come back with ?why not? may be a smart answer but I also think it is a copout, avoidance if you will, and I am not having a go at you, this paragraph is a separate thought. (So why do natural laws exist? ? Who put them there? Why do they work consistently, inexorably, through time without end? What did I do to kick this off? - and hey! For me it doesn't have to be a crisis, it could be anything - I'm sure I didn't plan half the stuff that happens to me! Who's in charge here anyway? I had something else entirely in mind! Why can't I look like Kathleen Turner?)

There is a possibility that it is only through crisis that we create/change/expand/develop ? (and while I would be tempted to use the word spiritually here because that is what I think) ? let?s use the words core values.

When things are going swimmingly we enjoy ourselves. We may increase our income, education, family, job, community status and possessions (new car, house etc). We are alive and joyous in our fortunate circumstances. Hopefully most of these decisions were made with appropriate involvement, care and thought and make us nice to be around.

However ? does the above ever create the sort of value-changes that might result for someone who loses their job and consequently their house, family and friends and ends up in a homeless shelter? Or a woman who leads a crisis free life until mid-thirties and then ends up in successive physically abusive relationships for the next 15 years? Or an ordinary couple with 3 children to whom nothing extraordinary happens until the mother and all 3 children are killed simultaneously in a car accident or fire?

Yes, of course core values will probably change with the fortunate circumstances - but are they questioned (soul-searched?) in quite the same way as the adverse circumstances might provoke in some people?

Bear in mind I've used extreme examples and for many people the decisions or incidents which kick off soul-searching value changes are a great deal less important than those above. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

It seems to me you have an open mind on the subject Ficina, and are entirely comfortable leaving the details to be sorted out at a later date, if ever. Maybe. Then so be it, it isn?t urgent for you. I not only believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I actually do accept that others opinions can differ from mine? which is why you will not find me trying to persuade you to my point of view in this case. Will I discuss it? Of course I will. Will I argue I?m right and someone else is wrong wrong? No, I hope not. Everyone comes to an understanding they can live with at a time that is right for them, in my case I suppose this is a belief in the survival and continual evolution of the spirit. However it also allows that some don?t reach a conclusion, which is what I think you are saying ? that the jury?s still out.

The reincarnation/recycling theory certainly makes a lot of sense and it will be interesting to find out, eventually, if it is correct.

Uh-huh.

Sungem: How does that saying go? "The heart has its reasons, whereof reason knows nothing".
Ficina: I think that saying is usually applied to someone who falls in love with the "wrong" person.

I was actually extrapolating it to apply to my previous quote and your response?

Sungem: Sometimes when finding an idea it relates to the heart whispers "yes!" - for others perhaps it never does, or at least does so differently.

Ficina: Exactly!

S: And this includes, one supposes, a lack of response as well.

F: Not quite sure what you mean there.

Again, simply extending the above.

So are you saying your belief structure is irrational?

LOL! Quite possibly! Who knows? I could just be babbling again!! (<-- I?ve no idea what ?lala happy? means ? to me this is ROTFL ? I do actually take a lot of things at face value, not everything's D&M ).

Cheers,
Sungem

?I suppose this is a belief in the survival and continual evolution of the spirit.?

Where there?s a need to be, love (lief) usually follows.

Reason is the faculty of mind ? organized conscious thought is a part of the mind.

Then there?s also mind over matter ? mind as a state of be-ing ? Lol!.

Not forgetting, where there?s a need to be ...

Just seems to keep going round and round.

?The heart has its reasons ??

Hearts do have a way of keeping the currents of life and love flowing round.

So does this mean life and love are irrational?

Ah well, if I recall rightly so is 'pi' and I hear it?s been proved transcendental.

Best wishes,
TS