Skyscript Astrology Forum

Juan wrote:
using lunar parallax is even more marginal. This affetcs significantly the timing of ingresses and returns, the timing of new and full moons, the timing of primary directions of the moon. The difference in the timing of lunar celestial events when parallax is considered is often more than 1 hour, but this effect is disregarded buy the grat majority.

Juan

hi juan,

i am not sure if you are familiar with the research on the parallax corrected moon position that was done by david cochrane.. cochrane is the founder of cosmic patterns software used by a number of astrologers. he went into this thinking that it would result in greater accuracy but was surprised to find that it didn't and that the traditionally calculated moon was more accurate. i don't know that his research is statistically verifiable, but it is interesting non the less. if you pick up his little book called 'astrolocality magic', he discusses this in chapter 6.. as the title of the book implies - the focus is on astrocartography, or relocation astrology, or locational astrology, for the most part and so the other idea you mention of what is often ignored by astrologers - paranatellontas, or the use of 'parans' is also a main feature of those who work with these type ideas.. perhaps you would enjoy working more time in that area of astrology, or perhaps you already do!

delete

delete

Let's give consideration to the idea that the past is not dead, it is alive and constantly interacting with the present; this is a psychological truth but we may apply it to the earth too. The earth has a "memory", so that even if we don't see the past with our physical eyes, I think we can assume that it is still there, alive and moving. If we were able to see with our etheric body instead of our physical eyes, we would see the stream of time like a simultaneous tableau, time becomes fluid and the past, the present, and to some extent the future collide or coalesce in the river of time, all flowing in the creative movement of the moment.

When instead of our physical eyes we "see" with our etheric eyes, the world outside becomes something very different because we are inside the stream of time. Instead of the empty space of the sky we see the ecliptic as a path of light as if the Sun and the Moon, the full moons, were simultaneously at every single point of their yearly path. This yearly 12 folded tableau contains the earth memory of the seasons and lunations, it contains the accumulated experience of countless lunar and seasonal cycles of the earth repeated over and over. These cycles are not abstractions but a memory ("experience") of everything that is alive, that we can see projected unto the bidimensional flatness of the zodiacal band. The planets are no longer moving points of light along the zodiac, they are flowing luminous, living streams like drawings or writing in the sky, moving over the living memory of the earth.

Let's imagine that we go to the place where the Battle of Gettysburg took place. We stand at the exact spot where the main charges in battle occurred 150 years ago. These series of events still "exist" in the memory of the place and we interact with them, we let them affect us. This situation may be compared to a transit to a birth chart. As we return to the battlefield 150 years later, Jupiter returns to the place in the ecliptic that Mars occupied at the moment of birth. Birth "marked" this spot of the ecliptic in a "Mars in Gemini" way, so everytime Jupiter returns to this spot, it interacts with the Mars "mark" of the event in the past that is still moving, flowing, in constant dialog with the present and the future, dancing in the living stream of time.

Every human being contains a replica of this in his/her etheric body, at the level of the solar plexus. This inner sky or zodiac is marked by the most decisive moments or events of the individual's life (including obviously but not exclusively birth and conception), and it interacts with the "outer" zodiac, they are tied together, but the inner zodiac has a life of its own.

This to me is a "natural" reality, we don't see it but it happens nonetheless, and it affects or "influences" us. I think this is the natural, occult, spiritual basis of Astrology, which originated from ancient clairvoyance, but this is not the same as saying that the Astrology we practice today is the same thing. Our Greek horscopics is something entirely different, and the inability to see the difference is the source of great confusion.

So what is the difference?

Juan

Paul wrote:However again you imply again here that astrologers are not using the 'real' coordinates of the planet

I never suggested that. I said they are using a discrete abstract coordinate as if it were the real planet, and this coordinate often does not reflect the position of the planet as can be observed in the sky. So astrologers work with the charting (the chart, the unidimensional coordinate), not with the planet.

One good example is the use of the 8 hypothetical planets in Uranian astrology, for which nothing real exists. Some people like to think that this is not astrology, but I think their effective successful use illustrates how and why astrology works, better than any other argument.

I don't see why running a piece of data through a translation tool or a further abstraction is such a big deal that it need to be noteworthy - true astrologers often do not use declination but that's because the data is filtered in such a way so as to exclude it deliberately because they feel it is not always necessary.

Nothing of this is "such a big deal" except when the coordinate is confused with the planet. There is nothing wrong with using discrete coordinates, this is astrology, but it is wrong when astrologers decieve themselves and think that what happens to that coordinate, the events they are interpreting, are always matched by what happens to the corresponding planet or point of light in the sky. The inclusion of declination (celestial latitide would be more correct) is added as a further qualifier to the position in longitude, so it doesn't change a thing.

I think what happens here is that fluctuating data is juxtaposed against static data for the purposes of comparison. I do not think astrologers look at the chart, any chart, and think "this is you", instead they think "this represents you or part of you in some way". Transits are the same.

This analogy cannot be applied to astrology unless the static data is that of an instant of time, as in a horoscope, not the processing of cummulative data from different moments, this is not astrology. Assuming it is, we agree as long as we understand what the "static data" represents. Comparing data of the past with data of the present is not the same thing as believing that the data of the present interacts organically with that of the past, and believing that this static data of the past represents an organic aspect of you in the present.

Celestial influence is a continuous organic and spiritual process, it cannot be modelled by means of an instantaneous chart of the past, this type of chart can only represent it by way of metaphor and convention. Your (bad) example demonstrates this point.

But astrologers do not think it happens here and now with two jupiters, any more than business analysts think there are two '3rd quarters' in a year. In this case a square can be seen as a particular relationship between Data 1 and Data 2 - but why is this worth noting?

You are using a really bad analogy because an astrological chart is not cumulative data, it is instantaneous data, and you are forgetting that what I'm criticizing is explaining astrology by means of celestial influence, not the use of transits by itself. It needs to be noted, and repeated as many times as necessary, that a common transit to a birth chart is not a phenomenon of nature, it is astronomically impossible, it is not an "external event" and parenthetically, can never be an example of "synchronicity" except at the moment of making an interpretation, the construction of meaning, which is a phenomenon of consciousness not of nature.

Okay, if it's just a matter of correcting what flawed assumptions astrologers may have regarding their astronomy, then so be it.

It is not the assumtpions regarding astronomy but the assumption regarding astrology due to flawed or insufficient astronomical knowledge.

I was thinking more that you were criticising astrologers (generally, perhaps even yourself included) for not taking into account things like declination or suggesting that as a result of not doing so that we're not dealing with an astronomical reality - we still are, it's just that the data we work with is 'filtered' so as to only work with longitude (for whatever reason).

I don't criticize or question the practice, it is the flawed assumptions, the misrepresentation of this practice that I criticize.

The conjunction still happens 'in the sky' it's just that it only happens when projected onto one plane.

So now you write "in the sky" in quotation marks. If the conjunction only happens when projected unto a geocentric flat plane, but not in the observed sky until 1 hour or so afterwards and only roughly approximate and in a different house, then it happens only in "the chart", in the charting, not in the sky, and the "correlation" with the experience of the sky or celestial phenomena that astrologers are said to work with is a misrepresentation, a myth, the correlation is with a chart for the astronomical reasons mentioned and also because about 90% of the chart does not correspond to anything that can be seen or thought to exist in the sky. Add to this that the chart usually is not of the present but of a long time ago (e.g. birth).

Juan

james_m wrote:i am not sure if you are familiar with the research on the parallax corrected moon position that was done by david cochrane... he went into this thinking that it would result in greater accuracy but was surprised to find that it didn't and that the traditionally calculated moon was more accurate.

Was not aware of it, but knew about Alphee Lavoie's research that gave the opposite results. Personally I think this type of research is interesting and I would certainly enjoy it, but in practice I feel more inclined to use the geocentric moon, as is normally calculated. I feel it is more standard, more universal or "normalized", like I think all of astrology is. Remember I am not advocating that the way it is usually done is wrong or needs reform.

Juan

Juan wrote: I never suggested that. I said they are using a discrete abstract coordinate as if it were the real planet, and this coordinate often does not reflect the position of the planet as can be observed in the sky.

I must be missing some subtlety because I don't see how this is different from my quote that you suggest astrologers are not using the correct coordinate for the planet, if you are saying that the coordinate they use "does not reflect the position of the planet".

So astrologers work with the charting (the chart, the unidimensional coordinate), not with the planet.

I understand and agree, but what I'm not sure of is what conclusions you draw from this - surely it's neither here nor there whether we use an abstraction of information or use raw data? I think you mean to highlight that astrologers confuse the chart data by forgetting it is an abstraction. Is this what you mean? If so, this is a commentary no astrologers, not on astrology - the two are obviously quite different.

Comparing data of the past with data of the present is not the same thing as believing that the data of the present interacts organically with that of the past, and believing that this static data of the past represents an organic aspect of you in the present.

The analogy will eventually fail as it is only an analogy. But this analogue of comparing static data at a given moment (a current transit as of RIGHT NOW) against static data of a given moment (planetary positions at birth) is to convey the idea that astrologers are comparing data sets and making conclusions based on that - the idea that they think there are two jupiters etc. is erroneous. It was that part that I'm focusing on. Obviously any analogue will fail eventually.

Your (bad) example demonstrates this point.

It depends on how you see it - if you see a transit as cumulative (its effect increases at an approach trine, increases further at an approaching square, still further at the sextile etc) then yes it is a bad example. If you do not see it cumulatively then it is not. I do not see it cumulatively. So in relation to how I view astrology it is not a bad example. But of course it is still only an example and the example was not meant to encapsulate astrology in its entirety just to juxtapose against the idea regarding two Jupiters etc.

But I think we're being weighed down in pedantry so I'll bow out now.

Paul wrote:I must be missing some subtlety because I don't see how this is different from my quote that you suggest astrologers are not using the correct coordinate for the planet, if you are saying that the coordinate they use "does not reflect the position of the planet".

I never said that any of it is incorrect, or that there is or we should use a "correct" coordinate.

... but what I'm not sure of is what conclusions you draw from this - surely

said it many times but will repeat it: that many astrologers --the great majority-- misrepresent what is astrology and what they are doing. The consequences of this misconception are far-reaching.

-- the idea that they think there are two jupiters etc. is erroneous.

When the astrologer thinks that he is charting celestial influence, then the implication of 2 jupiters is plain and direct: transiting jupiter and my natal jupiter. Here "my Jupiter when I was born" is not in the past, it is my Jupiter now or whatever jupiter stands for that is receiving the transit. When we realize this contradiction and absurdity, we begin to understand that this is a modelling based on metaphors, not a modelling of ongoing celestial influence.

... So in relation to how I view astrology it is not a bad example.

It isn't, but I am not talking of your view, with which I tend to agree.

Juan

Varuna 2 wrote:

If this argument were actually true, then we would not use an ephemeris. We could just throw the planets wherever like straws in the I-Ching.

Some of us do both.

I do find your attitude dismissive and ill informed in regard the I Ching. Are you aware that the I Ching has a similar place in East Asian culture as the Bible in the west or Vedas in India?

The I Ching is not just some vulgar divination system as you present it
(or more accurately misrepresent it). The I Ching has influenced Chinese religion, philosophy, astrology, geomancy, medicine, alchemy, martial arts and even military strategy! Its an immensely profound and thought provoking book which Confucius himself regarded as an ancient book of wisdom when he encountered it in the 6th century BCE.

I have used the I Ching for almost 35 years and have a lot more respect for it than much of what passes for astrology in India or the West today.

Mark

delete

Varuna 2 wrote:

My only purpose in differentiating between astrology and I Ching, was to demonstrate that astrology does ultimately use a natural world basis in a way that is easily understood by contemplating an ephemeris vs. some other form of reading such as the I Ching.

Superficially, astrology may appear more 'real world' but I am not sure such a dichotomy actually reflects the reality of the process involved. After all both systems rely on making a meaningful sense out of symbolic language and applying it to ourselves and friends, family and clients. I dont personally hold to a strict causal view of astrology. I rather like the Platonic notion of 'emanation' which could be applied to any system of divination. From this perspective all such systems are at best only tools i.e. Astrology, I Ching, Tarot, Runes. They represent inferior emanations from an ultimate or higher level of reality or truth. Like St Paul said 'For now we see through a glass, darkly'. Ultimately, I see all such systems as dispensible in preference to genuine spiritual realisation.

Varuna2 wrote:

Was your last sentence/paragraph a subtle jab back at me, just because I am not a skilled astrologer who uses jyotish, and based on a misunderstanding of my own real intentions? I can confidently state that you are being overly sensitive towards me and projecting, because I know myself, that what you stated was not my real intent, therefore it is coming from you. Maybe you were offended by my 'being tough' and aggression in the tropical thread in the jyotish section - which was not intended to offend you or tropicalists.

No Varuna I didn't have you in mind at all. I dont go in for sneaky underhand attacks like that. If I really wanted to criticise you you would know all about it. So I have to state you are being over sensitive here. To criticise someone due to lack of astrological experience or because they followed a different approach (in your case Jyotish) would be contemptible behaviour in my view.

I was actually thinking of the rather uninispiring shallowness of some of the so called 'professionals' out there.

Mark

We in the West tend to think too much in logical fashion,like "if A is right B must be wrong". Too radical.
Hence the penchant to regard on type of astrology as the only true one.
And that`s not how things work in my view. Many westerners are surprised that Japanese follow both Xintoist and Budist practices and philosophy, which in many ways contradict one another.
Not in their minds.

Regards