Michael wrote:

But do I need to remind you that, in so many cases, your own understanding of astrological symbolism remains by no means unquestioned

Hi Michael,

I'm going to be away for most of the day, and have only a few minutes now...so I just picked out this sentence near the begining of your post for now.

I don't think any of us has reached the stage where we can't be questioned. My own view is that astrology is in its infancy, and each of us is working with various small pieces of the puzzle. I only meant to point out that we need a broad understanding of many subjects (especially history and symbolism) to even begin to comprehend the vastness that is astrology. There is no area of creation that astrology doesn't touch.

More later.

Therese

Michael Sternbach wrote:It goes without saying that, if these creative individuals were part of the academic system, they could hardly express their out-of-the-box views in the first place because that system punishes its dissidents by denial or removal of recognition and sometimes employment.

This is really off-topic, but as an academic and an astrologer, I'd just like to say very briefly that, well, it depends. Academic culture varies a great deal, and, in my experience, Germany is one of the countries where it it can be at its most repressive. I hasten to add that, at the same time, Germany houses several projects which I greatly admire and for which astrologers have reason to be grateful, including these:

http://www.philosophie.uni-wuerzburg.de ... emaeus.pdf

http://www.ikgf.uni-erlangen.de/

Martin wrote:

This is really off-topic, but as an academic and an astrologer, I'd just like to say very briefly that, well, it depends. Academic culture varies a great deal, and, in my experience, Germany is one of the countries where it it can be at its most repressive. I hasten to add that, at the same time, Germany houses several projects which I greatly admire and for which astrologers have reason to be grateful ...

Hi Martin,

Your comment is fair enough.

I made a general assessment but, of course, there are academic institutions benevolent to alternative ways of research, and there are also a number of not so submissive academics who manage to survive in their environment nevertheless.

I don't think your comment is really off-topic, BTW, for Therese has raised this topic.

michael 1250pm post.. thanks for saying all that. i agree strongly with the general thrust and intent of your post. and, i too agree it's on topic..

Michael wrote:

Like most of us, you are convinced of your personal outlook on astrology, and if your system works for you, that's great.

Michael, I'm not really talking about my "personal system of astrology." In mentioning the symbolism of the Scales I'm referencing some very ancient symbolism that we may apply today in our understanding of a zodiac sign. I'm suggesting that we have a very dumbed down system for understanding signs of the zodiac. This is due to the almost universal use of "pop psychology" by astrologers who don't have formal training in psychology or counseling or history and symbolism or most other subjects either.

Interpretation of mythology and symbolism inevitably have subjective components to them because we are dealing with psychological matters here.

No, symbolism that has appeared through the ages isn't subjective. Neither are we dealing with psychological matters with that type of symbolism, which is historical and can be found throughout cultures and different metaphysical systems.

Furthermore, I don't see why ancient texts pertaining to astrological symbolism should be superior to or more valid than modern interpretations a priori.

Could this be because you apparently don't understand or accept the importance of historical context and tradition?

Astrology is one of few fields of study where creative mavericks still have a chance to reach an appreciable audience.

I would say that's a grave mistake. Astrology doesn't belong to mavericks. It's a great Cosmic Science. That's my understanding and belief.

Your suggestions would just serve to make another elitist science out of astrology, more or less with a single standardized doctrine to be accepted by everyone.

I do believe that astrology is a traditional science and is indeed elitist. In earlier days astrology belonged to the priests and was kept secret in the temples. The "man in the street" didn't practice astrology. Robert Hand may have the best idea. I don't have the reference at the moment, but he suggested that astrology should have two distinct groups: the hobbyist and the professional. (P.S. We'd have to define "standardized doctrine.)

(The remainder following here is mine.) Professionals would need to study pre-approved subjects and pass stringent exams. If they are counselors, they would need professional counseling education. If they are researchers they would need higher specialty degrees. And so forth.

The question of how much education astrologers should have is a very sensitive issue at this time because very few astrologers have pursued higher degrees. Robert Hand is an exception. In his 60s he returned to school to acquire a Ph.D. so he would have the ability to translate ancient texts. I wish he were here to add his opinion on education for astrologers.

At this time at least, perhaps a gulf that cannot be bridged lies between those who have been academically trained (meaning higher education) and those who have not. Higher education hones the mind so that thinking becomes more clear and logical. The perception or understanding of these two groups tends to be very different. At sometime in the future I expect a great battle to erupt within astrology on the topic of education for astrologers, but probably not in my lifetime.

Why does someone choose to pursue higher education in the first place? Perhaps to prepare for a career with greater monetary rewards than is possible with less education. Perhaps, like myself, a person is very curious about many topics and wants to learn more. There is a strong desire to expand the mental horizons and understanding and mix with others of diverse backgrounds.

Personally, I would satisfy few of your requirements (in a formal manner).

Yes, I knew that from reading your various posts.

I am aware of occasionally making mistakes when writing in English, but please make a few allowances for a Native German speaker.

Your English is fine, Michael. I would question your thought processes and conclusions, but not your command of English.

I am, by the way, almost completely self-taught in English as well. My skills in this language are, for the most part, a side-effect of reading English books (including many astrological ones) in conjunction with a fat dictionary. Conceivably, you would suggest that I would be making less mistakes in my writing if I had been formally educated but I would reply to you that I probably wouldn't have learnt the language to an appreciable degree in the first place that way.

Learning a language is rather different than acquiring a wide range of knowledge in topics like history and symbolism. (But still, mastering a languge is commendable.) All I can say is that there is something about formal education that changes the mental outlook and makes it more universal. I suppose that is partly due to contact with many different minds and ideas over the course of acquiring a degree....and the mental discipline needed to study and pass all those courses. The work isn't easy, and generally expensive as well.

Of course, you may look at such matters however you wish, but for purposes of balance I felt obliged to represent an alternative perspective here since many people are visiting this forum and could potentially get the impression that most of the astrologers around are silently supportive of your views.

I'm smiling, Michael. I don't think we ever need to be concerned that very many will support my views! No way that will happen, especially on the topic of education for astrologers. I did fully expect a response such as yours when I wrote my notes on education, and I'm happy that you fulfilled my expectations. Thank you for your thoughts, and written in very good English as well!

Therese Hamilton wrote:RodJM wrote

I'm just emphasizing that fact that sun sign Libra tends to mimic that paradox of human behavior whereby, we all have a need to be alone with our independence etc.. and at the same time, albeit in a myriad of ways, need the company or companionship of others or another.

You're being too general here.

Well, we are talking about the Sun sign right? and that's because of the difficulties in acquiring accurate time of birth for any given calender date with regards to natal charts. Hence, the tendency to be generalised.

This is a psychological phenomenon exemplified in this zodiac sun sign and played out to the utmost degree, hence the symbolism of the scales weighting one side of this situation with the other.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Oh dear!! We really have to look at traditional symbolism here. Otherwise what is the use of symbols and archetypes through the ages? We can't just put our own spin on symbolism. From J. E. Cirlot's Dictionary of Symbolism (Philosophical Library, 1961)

Excuse me, ALL astrologers, either amateur or so called "professional" put there own "spin" on symbolism. How many books or articles expressing different views and opinions on astrological symbolism are there now? a quick look over the internet or down at your local library will demonstrate that, probably hundreds if not thousands and counting....

Therese Hamilton wrote: Scales: This instrument, of Chaldaean origin, is the mystic symbol of justice, that is, of the equivalence and equation of guilt and punishment....The deepest significance of the balance derives from the zodiacal archetype of Libra, related to immanent justice," or the idea that all guilt automatically unleashes the very forces that bring self destruction and punishment. (page 279-80)

This quote gives us a small idea of how very simplified we have made astrology in this modern age. How many astrologers truly understand the symbols with which they work?? Considering Cirlot's definition, are we now beginning to understand why tropical Scorpio (that is, sidereal Libra) has a rather unfortunate reputation?! There can be a certain harshness to certain areas of sidereal Libra. Libra really doesn?t have much interest in peace. Balance, yes. Peace, no.

You see, one of the major problems with astrology is astrologers want to place their own interpretation on symbols. But an overall general education is so very necessary for astrologers because astrology is so very broad.

In a lot of ways, I'm sure the majority of astrologers would favor an "open source" attitude to interpreting astrological symbolism. Perhaps we could call this - progress. Why should modern astrologers have there mind and spirit bound by some ancient dogma that was deduced from the mindsets of ancient civilizations and the way THEY saw it? I have written words to this effect in other sections of the forum.

Therese Hamilton wrote: If it were up to me no one would be allowed to hang out an astrological shingle without at least a year's astrological history under their belt, and then another four to six years of general higher education (with emphasis on speaking and writing clearly), followed by another two years (or more) of specialized astrological study and research. (Including a 200 or 300 page dissertation of original research work.)

I agree, but is there an international body that establishes standards, protocols and procedures? Apparently each country has there own national body of practicing astrologers and the required standards for registration of that organisation, here's one from Australia:

http://www.faainc.org.au/

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Well, obviously I'm out to lunch in today's world of astrology.

No, your part of it in your own style, like the rest of us on here.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

I bring psychology into it, because in understanding the totality of natal astrology, you can't have one without the other, they both describe the human condition but in different ways.

I'm sorry. This statement is confusing to me. I think you're trying to say that astrology must consider psychology along with.....??

Its not rocket science. both disciplines describe the human condition, albeit from different grasps of "reality", I interpret natal astrology as describing the personality of a human being from the moment of his or hers birth event, psychology is just another "language" that describes human beings but in a scientific framework and perspective, there are branches of psychology of course, that talk about this in deeper contexts of which are starting to get outside the topic area of this thread.

But in the final analysis of both approaches to describing the human condition, they are both relevant and insightful.

Therese wrote:

Michael, I'm not really talking about my "personal system of astrology." In mentioning the symbolism of the Scales I'm referencing some very ancient symbolism that we may apply today in our understanding of a zodiac sign. I'm suggesting that we have a very dumbed down system for understanding signs of the zodiac. This is due to the almost universal use of "pop psychology" by astrologers who don't have formal training in psychology or counseling or history and symbolism or most other subjects either.

Hello Therese

Let me start by summing up your outlook on astrology's history as I understand it (based on various post of yours and your website):

?Once upon a time in a far away land [presumably Atlantis], there existed a PERFECT ASTROLOGY WRITTEN IN GOLDEN LETTERS. Due to a general spiritual and moral decay from this Golden Age towards contemporary decadency, this lofty lore regrettably came down to us only in so many pieces. Which are additionally getting scrambled up by the deluded interpretations of modern psychological astrology.?

Would this be fair enough a summary?

If so, it may come to you as a surprise that I would actually agree with you on much of this!

You know, in my younger days, I sailed out myself to uncover that hidden treasure. On this quest I also started with the assumption: the older = the closer to the Source of Wisdom = the more authentic.

Yes, there is sometimes a grain of truth in this view... But I had to come to see that things are far more complex and non-linear in reality!

For one thing, it is inevitable that whatever piece of the UNIVERSAL JIG-SAW you may be able to perceive, you will always be looking at it through the filters of the Zeitgeist and of your own individuality (as depicted in your horoscope chart!).

The world's what you make it, you cannot escape it!

There are no cut-and-dried, absolute truths. There are only ever higher levels of understanding to be gained, individually and collectively, on end. This is what I believe.

This doesn't diminish any (relative) truth's validity or value.

It goes without saying that there can be aberrations and detours on a soul's journey into infinity. There can be distortions in one's perception of truth. I don't think anyone is immune to this.

Let me start by saying that I find some of your concepts interesting, i.e. your outlook on harmonics, or your references to Edgar Cayce. And as you may know from my earlier posts, I am no representative of dogmatism in esoteric science.

But I do feel that in certain instances you twist reality like a pretzel in support of preconceived assumptions.

Such as here:

From: http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/amalefe2.htm

Mars is probably the planet that is most comfortable with the physical world; Mars can be very persistent and stubborn when it wants to be.

Yes, especially, when Mars is in his exaltation in the earth sign Capricorn!

Mars' inherent nature is fast and decisive action; persistence and stubbornness are not traits generally attributed to Mars!

Yet you are using these traits as a major argument in support of your theory of Mars being the ruler of tropical Taurus (which is sidereal Aries in disguise).

More examples available on demand.

BTW, one of your references on aforesaid web-page, John Gray?s Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, could be seen as an excellent example of ?pop psychology?. (Don't get me wrong, personally, I like the book!)

Michael wrote:

Furthermore, I don't see why ancient texts pertaining to astrological symbolism should be superior to or more valid than modern interpretations a priori.

Therese replied:

Could this be because you apparently don't understand or accept the importance of historical context and tradition?

Hardly, Therese. As my constant references to historical scholars and traditional astrology demonstrate!

But it is true that I don't assign a higher value to things based on their age a priori (= prior to being tested by evidential experience). - And that's right what I said!

Michael wrote:

Interpretation of mythology and symbolism inevitably have subjective components to them because we are dealing with psychological matters here.

Therese replied:

No, symbolism that has appeared through the ages isn't subjective. Neither are we dealing with psychological matters with that type of symbolism, which is historical and can be found throughout cultures and different metaphysical systems.

I don't mean to deny that there is a time-honoured, cross-cultural - even mathematically based - symbolism.

The level it abides on was discovered C. G. Jung by comparing symbolism found in his patients' dreams with ancient alchemical iconography and literature.

Jung likened an archetype to a crystal's matrix that will generally determine a the shape of a crystal growing but will allow for so many different variations on the theme, nevertheless. Likewise, the archetype as such can never really be fathomed.

What I really said is that
a) interpretation of symbolism
b) has subjective components to it.

Certainly, the Sun can never have exactly the same meaning for you as he did for an Aztec priest (or so I suppose).

Surely, symbolism lives within man's psyche?

Michael wrote:

Astrology is one of few fields of study where creative ?mavericks? still have a chance to reach an appreciable audience.

Therese replied:

I would say that's a grave mistake. Astrology doesn't belong to mavericks.

It's really funny that you would be the one saying this!

It's a great Cosmic Science. That's my understanding and belief.

I surely agree with you on this!

Actually, this is the reason why I would not like to see it becoming another ?members only? science. While you seem to be more worried about its secularization.

Therese wrote:

I do believe that astrology is a traditional science and is indeed elitist. In earlier days astrology belonged to the priests and was kept secret in the temples.

Gosh, who were you in a former incarnation? Cleopatra?

Therese wrote:

At this time at least, perhaps a gulf that cannot be bridged lies between those who have been academically trained (meaning higher education) and those who have not.

I don't believe this necessarily to be the case.

Personally, I know a number of academically trained people I find little difficulty to meaningfully communicate with, to the benefit of both sides (including academic members of this forum).

But then again, I have a few prominent academics among my close ancestors.

Presumption on part of the academic can be an issue, though.

Higher education hones the mind so that thinking becomes more clear and logical. The perception or understanding of these two groups tends to be very different.

The mind will be honed and thinking trained by formal as well as by self-conducted education.

While a stringent curriculum may have its advantages, there is then also the issue of the mind getting conditioned into unquestioningly accepting certain beliefs and views as ?truth?. This dogmatism gets inherited from one academic generation to the next.

Self-education sets you up for an appreciation of diverse views and individual creativity.

This is probably why many of humanity's greatest discoveries and inventions were made by ingenious self-educated people. (Examples on demand.)

Just for the sake of clarity, I have no problem with any specific academics at all a priori! I just don't give much credence to people's credentials (pun intended).

Therese wrote:

Why does someone choose to pursue higher education in the first place? Perhaps to prepare for a career with greater monetary rewards than is possible with less education. Perhaps, like myself, a person is very curious about many topics and wants to learn more. There is a strong desire to expand the mental horizons and understanding and mix with others of diverse backgrounds.

All I can say is that there is something about formal education that changes the mental outlook and makes it more universal. I suppose that is partly due to contact with many different minds and ideas over the course of acquiring a degree....and the mental discipline needed to study and pass all those courses. The work isn't easy, and generally expensive as well.

ALL of this equally applies to many a private scholar and ?amateur? researcher.

Michael wrote:

Personally, I would satisfy few of your requirements (in a formal manner).

Therese replied:

Yes, I knew that from reading your various posts.

I congratulate you on your discerning eye, then! I don't think that many of your academic colleagues on this website would have easily guessed that.

Even though I admit that my sometimes unconventional style of writing is not exactly reminiscent of the typical dry manner of expression many an academic employs.

Michael wrote:

I am aware of occasionally making mistakes when writing in English, but please make a few allowances for a Native German speaker.

Therese replied:

Your English is fine, Michael. I would question your thought processes and conclusions, but not your command of English.

Thanks, Therese.

Funnily, I constantly question my thought processes and conclusions myself.

BTW, any serious researcher should.

But still, mastering a languge is commendable.

Nobody is perfect!

Michael wrote:

I felt obliged to represent an alternative perspective here since many people are visiting this forum and could potentially get the impression that most of the astrologers around are silently supportive of your views.

Therese replied:

I'm smiling, Michael. I don't think we ever need to be concerned that very many will support my views! No way that will happen, especially on the topic of education for astrologers. I did fully expect a response such as yours when I wrote my notes on education, and I'm happy that you fulfilled my expectations. Thank you for your thoughts, and written in very good English as well!

Thank you, too. It's a pleasure to argue with you!

Michael

Reply to Michael, Part 1:

Michael, let?s demonstrate that we can continue this discussion (as time allows) without animosity.

I?m going to begin my reply by excepting a point from your post. I?ll give an example or two of how a formally educated person would answer differently than you have. I don?t mean this as a one upmanship, but only as an illustration of how perception and training affect mental processes. Let?s start here:

Therese wrote:
At this time at least, perhaps a gulf that cannot be bridged lies between those who have been academically trained (meaning higher education) and those who have not.

Michael replied:
I don't believe this necessarily to be the case.

Michael wrote:
But I do feel that in certain instances you twist reality like a pretzel in support of preconceived assumptions. Such as here:

From http//www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/amalefe2.htm

?Mars is probably the planet that is most comfortable with the physical world; Mars can be very persistent and stubborn when it wants to be.?

Michael wrote:
Mars' inherent nature is fast and decisive action; persistence and stubbornness are not traits generally attributed to Mars!

Yet you are using these traits as a major argument in support of your theory of Mars being the ruler of tropical Taurus (which is sidereal Aries in disguise).

More examples available on demand.

First of all, an academically trained person would say something like this:

?I find your argument for Mars ruling sidereal Aries to be faulty. Here is my evidence that you are wrong:?...(followed by supporting concrete examples) It's doubtful that any person holding a higher degree would make a judgmental and unsupported statement such as "...you twist reality like a pretzel in support of preconceived assumptions." I found that statement of yours very humorous!

As a matter of fact I?m on firm footing here. The Gauquelins found the terms ?resolute, self-willed, stubborn and tenacious? to be associated with Mars, and as we know, traditionally Mars has been associated with Aries. But I can do better than that. AstroDatabank has several individuals under the category of ?Stubborn/steadfast.? I?ll give you some chart illustrations for sidereal Aries from that list.

But as this would make an interesting new sidereal topic, today or tomorrow I?ll copy the above exchange between us under something like: ?Tropical traits/sidereal signs.? (I haven?t decided on a precise topic title yet.) We can continue this particular discussion there. And you can provide as many examples from my web site as you like, because that web site represents more than 40 years of astrological research and study and three university degrees.

As we are using our Mercuries here, can we exchange positions for the benefit of readers? My Mercury is in 5? of sidereal Scorpio (Krishnamruti) and about 27? of tropical Scorpio. In the sidereal zodiac Mercury is in mutual reception with Mars in Virgo. In the tropical zodiac the dispositor of Mercury is Mars in Libra.

(My reply to be continued in Part 2 as soon as possible. Time is of the essence!)

Reply to Michael, Part 2:

Michael wrote:
Let me start by summing up your outlook on astrology's history as I understand it (based on various post of yours and your website)

Once upon a time in a far away land [presumably Atlantis], there existed a PERFECT ASTROLOGY WRITTEN IN GOLDEN LETTERS. Due to a general spiritual and moral decay from this Golden Age towards contemporary decadency, this lofty lore regrettably came down to us only in so many pieces. Which are additionally getting scrambled up by the deluded interpretations of modern psychological astrology.

Would this be fair enough a summary?

Well, I do believe that there is such a thing as an ?ideal astrology,? but perhaps it was rarely practiced that way. It would take a spiritual Master to understand and apply that knowledge. (As illustrated by Sri Yukteswar in Yogananda?s Autobiography of a Yogi, ?Outwitting the Stars.?)

Because I?m trained in psychology, I do see astrology as a useful key to astrology. My complaint is that there are too many practitioners who don?t really understand psychology and how to deal with clients. I?d love to see planetary basics taught in the schools from the kindergarten level on. This would help greatly in children understanding each other. But until one has truly mastered a subject, that person doesn?t have the knowledge to question basics. (Such as suggesting that an asteroid rules Virgo.)

I?m not suggesting that psychology shouldn?t be a part of astrology. I?m saying that as a foundation we need to understand and apply traditional symbolism. Both are needed.

You know, in my younger days, I sailed out myself to uncover that hidden treasure. On this quest I also started with the assumption the older = the closer to the Source of Wisdom = the more authentic.

Yes, there is sometimes a grain of truth in this view... But I had to come to see that things are far more complex and non-linear in reality!

For one thing, it is inevitable that whatever piece of the UNIVERSAL JIG-SAW you may be able to perceive, you will always be looking at it through the filters of the Zeitgeist and of your own individuality (as depicted in your horoscope chart!).

The world's what you make it, you cannot escape it!

This is why we need to stay with the basics: sign rulership, exaltations, the terms and decans. Mars rules anger; Venus rules peace; The Moon reflects and seeks attention; The sun stands for status and recognition, and so forth.

There are no cut-and-dried, absolute truths. There are only ever higher levels of understanding to be gained, individually and collectively, on end. This is what I believe.

That?s too complex a philosophical question to discuss on an astrological forum.

BTW, one of your references on aforesaid web-page, John Grays Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, could be seen as an excellent example of pop psychology. (Don't get me wrong, personally, I like the book!)

John Gray did have professional training. I haven?t looked to see if other professionals criticize his work.

Furthermore, I don't see why ancient texts pertaining to astrological symbolism should be superior to or more valid than modern interpretations a priori.

I didn?t say that. Both you and Rod placed that interpretation on my words. But we do need to place astrology into historical context.

Michael wrote:
Astrology is one of few fields of study where creative mavericks still have a chance to reach an appreciable audience.

Therese replied:
I would say that's a grave mistake. Astrology doesn't belong to mavericks.

Michael replied:
It's really funny that you would be the one saying this!

All I?ve done is take a century of tropical observation and place it into the correct zodiac. And I?ve used material from recent translations to help explain the sidereal zodiac. Are you referring to something else?

Therese wrote:
I do believe that astrology is a traditional science and is indeed elitist. In earlier days astrology belonged to the priests and was kept secret in the temples.

Michael replied:
Gosh, who were you in a former incarnation? Cleopatra?

No, just a simple temple priestess, one of many.

Therese wrote:
Higher education hones the mind so that thinking becomes more clear and logical. The perception or understanding of these two groups tends to be very different.

Michael replied:
The mind will be honed and thinking trained by formal as well as by self-conducted education.

Ah....you see yourself as an example of self-conducted education with no need for additonal formal training?

Michael wrote:
Personally, I would satisfy few of your requirements (in a formal manner).

Therese replied:
Yes, I knew that from reading your various posts.

Michael replied:
I congratulate you on your discerning eye, then! I don't think that many of your academic colleagues on this website would have easily guessed that.

Why don?t you ask Martin and anyone else you believe is an academic? But especially Martin.

Thank you, too. It's a pleasure to argue with you!

I think it?s been more of a discussion, not so much an argument. Now, if you wish, you will have the opportunity on a new thread to question anything you like from my web site.

Therese

Therese Hamilton wrote: I?m saying that as a foundation we need to understand and apply traditional symbolism. Both are needed.

You raise a most critical point Therese, I'm expressing my opinion on this.

Traditional symbolism is where the idea or concept of natal personality characteristics being expressed in those ancient symbols, that as we all know, were ascertained by observations of star based zodiacal constellations. Which is all good and fine because those ancient masters put the notion forward of this whole idea in the first place. That is, zodiacal and planetary symbolism matching or describing natal human behavior.

However.... the problem I see with corresponding it in today's global population is that we must consider the undeniable fact that those observations of human behavior were only based on the communities in those specific northern hemisphere geographical locations. I know I have said words to this effect elsewhere on this forum, but its something that strikes me everytime I come across any astrologer who backs themselves up with what they (the ancient masters) say about zodiacal sign X or Planet Y etc.. do these observations act out the same in any given geographical location where there are human communities in today's world?? This question will probably go unanswered for a long time.

Also we must take into account that whenever one human being observes another human being or groups of human beings, there is the inevitable subjective bias of one's thought patterns in interpretation. This is a well known psychological phenomenon as you would understand Therese.

It gets exceptionally confusing when modern astrologers sometimes use key words of description that can have common meanings between any two entities, often I see this happening between the Sun and Mars for example. This faulty thinking can also apply to any given zodiacal constellation or planetary symbolism in our solar system. This is something I have noticed across the spectrum of modern western astrologers today. So in turn, this just adds more confusion and delusion to the wall of persuasive communications between modern western astrologers, who like any group of individuals will "swarm" together to reinforce each others perceptions. A bit like that old saying "Birds of a feather flock together".

All this explains largely why I have been coming and going in and out of astrology for over 30 years. I just wish someone or some group with professional training, somewhere, who has the tools and resources will get to the bottom of this so that anyone who claims they are western astrologer just like any other occupation can have a universally agreed upon consensus of what exactly does, say for example, Mars represents as opposed to what the Sun represents in the human psyche.

Hello Rod,

When I mentioned "traditional symbolism" I mainly had in mind basic meanings of symbols, such as the Libran Scales or the mythology of the Gemini twins. This type of symbolism would apply anywhere in the world. It's true that much of the seasonal symbolism applies only to the northern hemisphere.

In the majority of ancient texts the signs were broken into segments: decans, terms, degree areas and so forth. Those divisions would still apply today. And if a degree area relates to a particular star, we have to remain with a sidereal zodiac. Do you know any astrologer who has looked into whether the decanates and terms apply in either zodiac? Lee Lehman has done some research, but there has been nothing to compare it with, including sidereal positions.

Planetary meanings would apply anywhere, and there really isn't much recorded in the old texts on the signs of the zodiac as a whole that we can use today. Much of the sign material has to do with stars and co-risings which are location specific, the shape of the constellations, and so forth.

I just wish someone or some group with professional training, somewhere, who has the tools and resources will get to the bottom of this so that anyone who claims they are western astrologer just like any other occupation can have a universally agreed upon consensus of what exactly does, say for example, Mars represents as opposed to what the Sun represents in the human psyche.

Historic texts are fairly standard on traits of the planets. But even better we have the meticulous work of the Gauquelins. If you're talking psychology related to signs, tropical observations (not tropical theory) are the most helpful. (Though as I've often stated, I apply these observations to the sidereal zodiac). But (as I said) these observations need to be combined with symbolism connected to zodiac signs such as he Scales or Gemini twins or the Ram, etc. (The Greek myths still apply today.) At least we need to study those symbols to see if they somehow apply to zodiac sign meanings, which brings up the tropical/sidereal topic again.

We all have the keys to astrology at our fingertips. First we collect as much symbolic and observed material as possible. Then we study birth charts and biographies rather than endlessly discussing theoretical issues. But this type of research work takes time and discipline, and it's a group endeavor. That's why I believe little progress will be made in astrology until astrological topics are offered for credit in universities, and a passing grade depends on original research.

I will be starting a new topic on symbolism of the signs and planets with example charts because Michael has questioned concepts from my web site. You can bring up specific questions there about the universal application of symbolism.

Therese Hamilton wrote: All I?ve done is take a century of tropical observation and place it into the correct zodiac.
Therese

therese,

first off i think it is unfair to just isolate one comment someone makes, like i am doing here and try to make some intelligent and grand deduction from it, but i want to point out how sometimes just a passing comment will also capture a particular insight into a person - you can't get this from a degree at any university and it is outside the realm of being taught - it has to be learned first hand..

saying the 'correct' zodiac seems to sum up a closed mind as i see it which i also think is the antithesis of the ability to learn and continue to grow. now, this is just as i see it and not being a scholar or holding a degree at some prestigious university of astrology ( you knew all that anyway, lol) you can take this passing comment however you want to - correct, incorrect or whatever.. i still think an open mind is the most valuable asset we can have no matter what our area of study is or whether we do or don't have the 'correct' credentials according to someone else. cheers james