I have not had the time to reply to Eddy's recent post so my apologies if this post is picking up the trail quite cold here.
I doubt if a child choses the moment of birth. Natural elements or on the other side Caesarean sections which depend on the decision of doctors etc. are stronger I think. Perhaps there is also something like 'divine intervention' which can be seen as the 'free will' of a 'supreme being'.
Hi Eddy,
Didn't Gaughelin's research find the so called 'Mars effect' disappeared with induced births? The only book I have come across that tried to pull together Gaughelin's research with astrology was
The Message of Astrology by the British astrologer Peter Roberts. Roberts had studied Harmonics with John Addey and his theory is an interesting combination of harmonic theory, Gaughelin's research and reincarnation. Worth checking out if you hold to a more naturalistic outlook.
Concerning horary, since I don't know much about it I'm not in the position to judge it. It seems to be the achilles heel of a pure natural view of astrology.
At least we can agree about that.
From a technical point of view the main difference with say Tarot is that if for example in two different rooms next to eachother a horary is done at the same time for the same question the chart will look the same and the answer would resemble if the same techniques are used (e.g. Lilly's). The chance that the Tarot cards laid down would be the same however would be extremely small.
Thats a good point. I accept astrology has some unique characteristics that distinguish it from other systems. That doesn't mean it cannot be viewed as oracular.
However there it may be possible to find a link between all these by which all stem from a natural source.
Good luck on that. I hope you are a patient man.....
Why would doubt be a problem. I think some doubt makes a person more careful and more willing to research.
I was discussing doubt in the context of a client consultation. It would be quite disastrous to start doubting your approach in that context. By all means lets question our techniques and probe deeper. However, a consultation is not the place to do that in my opinion.
I suspect your thinking more of an astrological researcher. Thats very different.
While Kirk is right that much depends on the astrologer and much happens in the interaction between astrologer and the other person, this view could be subject to the often heared criticism that all astrology and divination is a variant of 'cold reading'. There indeed is such a thing as 'cold reading' and I believe this kind of criticism should be rather acknowledged than rejected, because then the astrologer can learn to discern what is really astrology and what is merely a psychological effect.
To a certain degree any empathic human encounter could be accused of this. I am not sure its really as conscious as many sceptics claim.
Our culture in which we grew up affects that what we see or experience. For the one dreaming about a snake would mean the devil and for the other the cycle of life.
True. Your point being I assume that astrological symbols are culturally relative? Its the same as being able to speak Italian or Spanish. Its incomprehensible gibberish if you dont understand the basic vocabulary. Astrology has rules and conventions we all have to learn first whatever our explanation of how it works. I therefore dont see astrology like the law of gravity working in all conditions. Without an interpreter of the astrological symbols or language there is no astrology.
Moreover studying a chart (whether horary or natal) or the Tarot (or any kind of divination art) seems to bring you in a sort state of mind where intuitively a connection is made with the other person/client. Without this, both arts could simply be performed by machines.
Agreed.
The spider hanging on the ceiling sees the room from another perspective than the mouse down in the corner does, however it is the same room.
Gosh Eddy. I wouldn't like to have to clean up around your place!
Point taken though.
Perhaps there is something else we don't know yet and that cannot be explained by newtonian physics. We shouldn't give in too much to scientists' remarks that the gravity of the doctor or midwife is many more times greater than that of Jupiter and also of the Moon. Sure the Moon doesn't 'pull' on us individually but she excerts the gravity for certain on the sea. With the tides the sea goes up and down and within it all fish and other creatures. I think this also happens with humans. I'd say 'something' around us over the whole Earth is somewhat affected by the planets and we are within it. The moment of birth being the most sensible moment for us.
Even if it could be demonstrated that a small element of the planets influence is in some way causal, as Peter Roberts has speculated, that still leaves the vast majority of astrology beyond any hope of naturalistic explanation. Why should purely symbolic techniques like progressions, primary directions or Solar Returns work for example?
The drawback of a pure symbolical view is that one needs to be 'initiated' in it or one needs an astrologer to explain what is happening. However the relation of weather with astrology and the possible effects of astrology on animals and plants indicate that there should be something physically related and couldn't be explained from a pure symbolical view.
We can see such connections or interconnections operating without the need for a causal principle.
It occurs to me that the origins of this discussion stem back to the two giants of early western phiolosophy: Plato and Aristotle. Plato suggested our perception of reality was simply a shadow of the true nature of things contained in the ideal form or 'the good'. This could be conceived of in theistic or monistic terms. The symbols of astrology are therefore just emanations of this pure realm of reality. Many metaphysical schools whether Neo-Platonic, Gnostic, Sufi or Kabbalistic upheld such views and influenced astrologers throughout the generations. I would suggest the first astrologers in the west (excluding Ptolemy) conceived astrology in something like this manner.
Astrological techniques however apparently powerful would all be viewed as imperfect emanations of the good or the eternal unchanging truth. While the heavens plays out its eternal cycles astrology and astrologers exist in the the sub-lunar world where everything is subject to change and imperfection.
We see a Christian equivalent notion to this Platonic view in St Paul's much quoted phrase of seeing 'through A Glass Darkly' in the New Testament in the book of Corinthians.
Its a mistake to think that a symbolic or metaphysical approach to astrology necessarily implies one is seeking to 'psychologise' it in the way modern astrology often does.
Throughout history many astrologers have sought the assistance of intermediary beings which are variously known as Daemons, Angels or Devas. We find this view quite explicit in the astrology of Vettius Valens. The Church father St Augustine, who had probably been exposed to astrology in the Manichean cult, condemned astrology not because it was perceived not to work but because he saw it as putting the astrologer in contact with demonic spirits!
Aristotle represents the other tradition in the west based on empiricism and rationalism. Arguably, our scientific world view today owes much to this. Ptolemy was the astrologer(?) who sought to embody this approach the most. However, if the ideas of Robert Schmidt and Robert Hand are correct Ptolemy was very much the odd one out in his approach to astrology. Robert Schmidt certainly suggests the originators of hellenistic astrology were working from an essentially Neo-Platonist outlook.
I prefer the view of Ptolemy of humours etc. I think this view was always there with the medieval astrologers, notwithstanding their symbolic approach
.
Medieval astrologers could effectively have their cake and eat it. They could argue that astrology was both art and science and there was no science to prove them wrong. William Lilly was probably one of the last astrologers that could practice his art without concern for its compatibility with a scientific paradigm. We dont have that luxury today. Hence the Holy Grail of modern astrology has been to obtain scientific acceptance.
Both the naturalistic and symbolic (or metaphysical) explanations for astrology both fail under the test conditions of rigid empiricism. The difference is that the latter view doesn't regard scientific empiricism as the final arbiter of all truth.
? I never wanted to reject the primary directions immediately but this makes the choice of a system very difficult. The choice then will be based upon theoretical preference for a system rather than upon experience. However I experience choosing a satisfying theory as a very difficult issue.