I agree with that comment about science and philosophy. I've been thinking a lot lately about how, in the past, those who became the great names of science all had a very rounded education, and philosophy was at the heart of it. Though studies were separate, each was expected to be understood in relation to other fields, so there was no clear distinction that kept the sciences and the humanities apart. Usually a study of Latin was required, which brought the need to be familiar with the works of the great philosophers too. This sort of education equally trained the imaginative and rational potential of the mind - the result: more possibility for brilliance to emerge.

Today we have the opposite, scientists are being persuaded to be singular in their approach to critical analysis and treat alternative views as destructive nonsense. This might help methodical application but it is limiting for science. All the great breakthroughs of science occured when someone argued against the mainstream, seeing a bigger picture that didn't fit the mold, with something that was considered 'alternative'.

Eddy, it's a common misperception to think that the things you mentioned are not relevant to astrology "era, political situation, economy, location, gender, age, (family)culture, own actions, human interactions etc. etc."

You say "Unless these aren't taken into consideration, most of astrological astrology remains educated guesswork". Ptolemy said the same thing - that it is only when these things are properly understood that astrological analysis should even begin.

Shifting gears a bit and wandering a bit in the process:

It?s obviously is not sufficient to say that it ?works for me? but it isn?t sufficient either to say that it works on hundreds of clients.

"It works for me" is kind of a bugaboo amongst astrologers because the obvious objection is "well if it works for you, then it should work for everyone." Then the statistician comes along and informs us that 'No it only has to work at a rate greater than chance for everyone."

The problem with "it works for me" is that the assumption by both advocate and detractor is that astrology is or should be mechanistic. The scientist not versed in anything else (as referred to above by Deb) is only able to see the mechanical side of everything because they think everything is mechanical. But those who say, "If it works for you, therefore it has to work for everyone," are also being mechanical. They're just saying the other guy's mechanics are faulty. Astrology isn't mechanical, because it if is, then astrology cookbooks reveal all.

But what of the people who say "it works for me?" Are they all lying? Let us grant, and get out of the way, that some of them are lying,and some of them are lazy and simply make the statement so they don't have to do the hard work of study and application. It is much easier to announce one's own insights as omniscient and move on. Let us also stipulate that some who say that honestly, believe it, and have reason to believe it. Why do they believe that and what do we do with them?

This is not a new problem. In fact it is restating a very old and continual situation in astrology - one astrologer is doing things differently than another and both claim positive results. The absolute best place to look for this is Morinus who criticized virtually everybody who came before him, but who at least took the trouble to state his rival's opinions (and more often than not accurately state them - there are a few flubs in this area, though), and then his own which he obviously considered superior. We can also, if we read Latin and I don't, look to Cardan and Guarico for the same sort of thing. Other astrologers were equally critical of others, but sometimes not as specific. But aren't they all ultimately saying "it works for me?"

The statistician mounts his charger and rides to the rescue with his calculator that to him reveals all truth. "Well let's find out who is more accurate: Cardan or Guarico, and then we'll find out whose methods work best when others use them. All we have to do is convert everything to numbers and put the numbers into my little electronic gizmo that will give us a third set of numbers which we will then convert to objective reality." Would that it were so. The second data dump of e-mails of manmade global warming advocates just this week gives us insight as to how well this method works. But even if used honestly this method is not going to reveal absolute truth every time. The material is objective; the rest of the world less so.

We are overwhelmed with technique. In fact I wonder if it isn't time to declare a moratorium on new techniques past and present, discard more than a few of them simply to clarify things and then actually apply this philosophy business to reading a chart. I attended a meeting of an astrology group one time and saw an eager beginner asking something about her chart. "I have Venus in the 10th. What does that mean?" - or something like that. A half dozen well meaning people all chimed in to answer and I doubt any two of the group gave the same answer. The one thing all answers had in common was they all represented a particular technique.

The proper question, it seems to me is not "What does Venus in the 10th mean?" but rather "How can we know what Venus in the 10th means with any certainty in a particular chart?" The answer to that question lies in Deb's observation that the best scientists were well rounded. They had a liberal arts education.

The expression "liberal arts" has an interesting etymology. The root of liberal is not the Latin phrase for "non-scientific." Liberal arts were the things it was believed a free man needed to function well as an adult. This was unnecessary for a slave or otherwise limited individual as their function in society was predetermined and required no thought - just the way the statisticians want us to live now. It is the statisticians that deny freedom to think or act outside their paradigm(although they will deny it their actions give the lie to their stated beliefs. Don't eat this, don't drink from that, buckle your seat belt, put on your safety helmet OR ELSE!!! There, there the statistics say it's for your own own good. It's not me). In fact it is the "social scientists" that work tirelessly to undermine the very freedom implied in liberal arts.

But back to the question, "How can we know what Venus in the 10th means?" The first thing we do is ignore statistics. We might come back to them at some point, but we need a little breathing room, and that is precisely what statistics deny. The next thing we do is practice what I think is the main difference in traditional astrology and its contemporary counterparts - get to the essence of the 10th house. Books give us rote answers: career, status, honors, fame, etc. But those things and more contain something in common with each other that cannot be measured. The same is true for Venus and is also true for whatever sign that holds Venus. This gives us a lot to work with that is not specific to the native and it is here that our other great admonition kicks it:"It depends on the rest of the chart." It does. What does Venus rule? What about receptions? What about aspects? This begins to fill out the picture without the constraints of statistical analysis that leads us away from precisely what we wish to know: information about this native. The practice of Psychology reverses what the application of essence does. Client sees therapist, discusses situation, psychologist recalls this or that study that applies. He then pigeonholes client as the odds favor the cookbook/statistical interpretation and works towards that end to find a solution.

One of the most innovative approaches to psychotherapy that I've come across was in a book titled "Plato Not Prozac." Those guys applied philosophy to people's problems. Now if an individual had a serious mental illness they quickly turned that over to the psychiatrists. Plato is not intended for the organically irrational. This is a lot closer to what we need to do. Their goal is to apply philosophy to the client's problems. The solutions to many problems is found in the wisdom of the great philosophers. I think this is closer to what we could be doing than applying an ever increasing number of techniques.

I don't want to meander much longer, but I think Ptolemy not cliches or maybe Morin not mental morphine is a much better approach if we could further refine it. The refinement of what we do to get more out of what we have not discover more variations of what we do know or more of what we don't know seems more practical. I am not discouraging further historical research only asking that the huge amount of what we now that we didn't know only a generation ago is ready for some application.

We have all been subject to the astrology book buying mania. Some of us still have it. We did that originally in order to find the one book that would explain it all perfectly and allow us to apply it perhaps even more perfectly. That book never existed. The waiting for more and more historical information to be unearthed is another way of playing the same tune. It's time to apply, technique and philosophy combined and most likely fail a lot and endure a lot of criticism in the process. The operative word is "apply" not "mimic ." Our ancestors are guides not the basis of statistics. They're mentors not computers. They're human; so are we.

This is all because people are pulling away from the nature. In rural areas, older people use astrology more than you know. Well, to be honest, they don't realize they are using it but still. They follow the quarters (or phases) of the Moon so they know when to plant and do other agricultural stuff. And not only agricultural. They cut hair according to the Moon, they do laundry when the Moon is in a sign of Watry Triplicity. I'm not kidding. 100% of the calendars they print show the quarters of the Moon and 80% show the current sign of the Sun and the Moon. In small print, but nevertheless.

But that's not astrology to them. That's a given. They know those things work (especially in agriculture) because they've been told by their parents and they have seen it for themselves.

So people in rural areas have been electing by the Moon for ages, at least in the Eastern Europe. They just don't know that it's astrology they're doing. They can also tell what's the weather gonna be like by things like that.

The horary is just a step above that kind of natural astrology. That's why it is by far more reliable than natal astrology. Yeah, I know, the same old tune by Seiko. But what is easier -- to determine the fate of the ship by looking at its blueprints or to tell if there will be a storm by certain observations?

So, I'm sorry, but from where I'm standing it looks like sour grapes. If you can't predict anything (I'm not saying the traditional astrologers are Nostradamuses) then it's psychology time, everybody. You are lazy and a sissy, you will never accomplish anything in your life. You have an inclination to do this or that but it will not show until this happens. Maybe. I think.

This ship is unsinkable, it will last for years but this little poorly built fisherman's boat will not survive even a hint of a storm. Yeah, right. We've been there.

Tom wrote:

But back to the question, "How can we know what Venus in the 10th means?" The first thing we do is ignore statistics. We might come back to them at some point, but we need a little breathing room, and that is precisely what statistics deny. The next thing we do is practice what I think is the main difference in traditional astrology and its contemporary counterparts - get to the essence of the 10th house. Books give us rote answers: career, status, honors, fame, etc. But those things and more contain something in common with each other that cannot be measured. The same is true for Venus and is also true for whatever sign that holds Venus. This gives us a lot to work with that is not specific to the native and it is here that our other great admonition kicks it:"It depends on the rest of the chart." It does. What does Venus rule? What about receptions? What about aspects? This begins to fill out the picture without the constraints of statistical analysis that leads us away from precisely what we wish to know: information about this native. The practice of Psychology reverses what the application of essence does. Client sees therapist, discusses situation, psychologist recalls this or that study that applies. He then pigeonholes client as the odds favor the cookbook/statistical interpretation and works towards that end to find a solution.

Well, may be I'm still being amateur astrologer, but I've got through good practical training in traditional techniques. One of problem solving was definition of native's profession.
And the first we've practically learn that there is no chance to define profession (more or less precisely) without following basic Ptolemy's technique:
Finding profession significators from:
- reviewing planets which have strength at MC
- planet which rising before Sun
Nobody knows exactly how Prolemy got that idea, but that WORKS
If you missed first to find RIGHT SIGNIFICATORS than you most likely lost at all
Planet in 10th house alone, without connection to MC sign can lead our analysis quite far from finding profession

For the part of astrology as a ?social? science, I agree about the necessity of philosophy. Perhaps for the calculation part, one could do without, but philosophy has also been a great inspiration for astronomy and mathematics.

Statistics don?t tell everything, I realise. I only mean to say that to be accepted by some areas of science, one has to apply statistics. I recently spoke a friend of mine who is a psychologist and used to ?evidence based? therapies but recently has started an alternative therapy practice. I hope to find some inspiration of her experiences in dealing with the doubts I?ve sometimes expressed.

I should have thought about Ptolemy, I guess I read too many bad (cook)books in the past which left a dominating bad taste.

In fact it is the "social scientists" that work tirelessly to undermine the very freedom implied in liberal arts

Unfortunately that?s true. Years ago a Turkish housemate of mine did translation work. One day she went with a social worker of the Riagg (the Dutch ?regional institute for mental welfare?), to translate the client, a Turkish woman, that needed some therapy. The social worker had a questionnaire consisting of several pages, to be ticked off with yes, don?t know and no. The translation was just about translating the questions for the Turkish woman and translating the yes & no answers to the social worker. There was no opportunity for the (future) client to tell her story, which was just she wanted to do. My friend was astonished, and the client probably too. The results in the questionnaire would be entered in the computer which subsequently would spit out a ?model? of the problem and the fitting model for the treatment.

In psychiatry it?s sometimes the same instrumental approach of a mental problem. I therefore feel quite like an antipsychiatric when I hear about people being stuffed up with anti-depressants while I believe there may be another solution. These sciences are not the sciences I?d make a stand for. I think most of you here will dislike it as much as I do.

Since I know a little bit about astronomy etc, I?ve always had a discomforting ambivalent feeling about astrology. Our understanding of physics is so well developed that we can predict astronomical positions to the arc second some centuries before. It?s just plain hard science. This means that at birth we can calculate any possible predicting technique for the following 100 years of life. If the course life is explained that way, I think we risk doing the same as the social worker of above, a mechanisation of human experience. However I don?t think that astrology can be as applied physics. I don't understand why many others don't have these feelings of ambivalence. The astrology needs constant and actual adjustment to non astrological factors. I sometimes even think that much prediction (for humans) is rather an expression of how the future is seen at that moment (and same for looking into the past), and might need a total new approach a few years later. One may predict to a prosperous 15 year old a change in career at age 25. This will be filled in according to what is known at that moment, perhaps considering a graduation at university. However if the person is a crack addict at age 20, this change of career might be the ?graduation? to the leader of a drugs dealing gang, or moving to a jail. Timing of moments is possible to a certain extent, it?s the dressing that?s difficult to know.

(I?ve been reading on some similar problem, I plan to mention it in the ?articles section? soon.)

That?s why I think that astrology is mostly external. It therefore horrifies me if people call the natal chart the ?map of the psyche? (did Jung invent this expression?). The psyche is free and in my opinion cannot be mechanically ?mapped? by objects and points subject to physical laws. This is what raised objections in many (also astrologers) in the past who rejected a strictly judicial astrology. It is a philosophical argument which played a much greater role than any scientific objection.

Other astrologers were equally critical of others, but sometimes not as specific. But aren't they all ultimately saying "it works for me?"

Yes, I think so.

Seiko wrote:This is all because people are pulling away from the nature. In rural areas, older people use astrology more than you know. Well, to be honest, they don't realize they are using it but still. They follow the quarters (or phases) of the Moon so they know when to plant and do other agricultural stuff. And not only agricultural. They cut hair according to the Moon, they do laundry when the Moon is in a sign of Watry Triplicity. I'm not kidding. 100% of the calendars they print show the quarters of the Moon and 80% show the current sign of the Sun and the Moon. In small print, but nevertheless.

I like this. Although I may appear as someone who searches just for mathematical precision, I like the natural approach.

The horary is just a step above that kind of natural astrology. That's why it is by far more reliable than natal astrology. Yeah, I know, the same old tune by Seiko. But what is easier -- to determine the fate of the ship by looking at its blueprints or to tell if there will be a storm by certain observations?

It sounds like a good tune. Another ambivalent feeling I?ve often had with natal astrology is the 'ego-centeredness' of it. The planets for a certain moment (birth) and a certain location all placed there for this certain individual.

The natural astrology surely has the attractiveness that it concerns the whole surroundings and not especially the individual. Moreover it has the advantage of the continuous flow of planetary positions not related to a natal or ?beginning? chart, apart from a few cases as ingress charts, and eclipse-points which are active for a while. I also think it?s possible the natal chart can ?dissolve? during lifetime. Perhaps this is the liberation of the attachment of the ego as meant in Buddhism and other philosophies.

At least there would be no more ?it works for me? agony then.

I only mean to say that to be accepted by some areas of science, one has to apply statistics

Which I'm sure is true, but why do we have to be accepted by science? I don't see that as necessary or desirable.