Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi Deb and Everyone

Am I correct that there is a gradual build up of prominence leading up to the peak, and a sharp decline after it? Or is it more the case that anywhere within these sectors the planets are expected to be strong in effect, and anywhere outside of them they are not?

The distributions Gauquelin found do not have sharp declines that suggest houses so you could be right about them being more related to the angles. Peaks are typically just after rising or culminating up, though some distributions (e.g. musicians) peak midway between ASC and MC. I can show you an example from what may be Gauquelin's last article, posted on my web site http://www.encosm.net/mars_effect.htm.

More harm than good is done where we try to explain something we don?t yet fully understand. I still believe that Gauquelin is calling us to revaluate principles that were established through the simple observation that the Babylonians made

You are right, understanding comes first before explaining. We need to find a way to explain.

Tom,

These results (i.e. the miliatry leaders statistics I alluded to plus his studies on athletes - tc) were duly published in the second book, Les Hommes et les Astres, in which Gauquelin with redoubled ferocity insisted that his evidence was not evidence for astrology.

Although Gauquelin took many risks intellectually, advocating astrology as a science in the 50s was too dangerous. It still is in acedemia, and that is something that needs to change. I think Gauquelin wanted to advocate something new, "stellar influences" (he proposed many possible mechanisms of "influence," all of them ridiculed by scientists). This new new approach would transform thinking about astrology. This sort of "renaming" approach is not unique and other authors took a similar approach, such as "cosmobiology," "geocosmic studies," "combined stellar influences," and so forth, even my own "environmental cosmology." Sometimes you've just got to call it something else, even though everyone knows it's astrology.

Gauquelin was criticised by scientists because after he had exhaused his hypotheses, not finding anything statistical in astrology, he continued to look for something/anything. He believed there had to be something there, if only he could find it. It was immensely frustrating. He dissolved the familiar boundaries of astrology as we know it, and just looked for patterns.

It strikes me now how very strange that his initial discovery was based on the birth data of high ranking medical academics. Who would have considered such an unusual sample? I think now that he purposely chose the worst critics of astrology, triumphantly discovered statistical astrology using their personalities, and published the results, including the data. The unmistakable mark of a true Scorpio!

When I once asked Gauquelin if he was an iconclast for both astrology and science, I was surprised by how immediately and delightedly he accepted that description.

How do you go from believing to knowing?

This is the sort of thing that could drive a sane man crazy.

When you go crazy, you start to look in the least likely and most daring places, as Gauquelin did. Gauquelin said that when he first saw the pattern in the distributions of Saturn and Jupiter in the medical academics, then he "knew" that he had something. It was something he at least partially understood, because of the connection to traditional meanings of Saturn and Jupiter, and thus he could at least partially explain what the results meant.

I think that knowing means sampling your experience, making connections, and sharing. To enter the realm of knowledge, you need to share.

Sungem,

Everything is connected. That's why astrology works.

That's a good belief. Gauquelin wanted to know not so much the "why" but the "how."

Andrew,

You are right that there are different kinds of knowing.

For me, there is the knowledge of rational experimental research and there is also the shared knowledge of common sense, which I believe comes from "practical research." We all learned astrology, so this "knowledge" must have come from somewhere. We are all building on the knowledge we learned.

Deb,

You know, these sorts of discussions really stress me out!

Me too! I hope with this Aries solar eclipse that this thread can come to an end and I can get back to my family and the things I should be doing that are less stressful than trying to sort out these complex issues. You can only cram so much into this tiny window I'm writing in.

When I rise early in the morning in the first hours of sunrise, and go for a jog or do my tai chi, I listen to the soft, distant sounds of the city waking up. Sound carries very far and so do thoughts. The morning chorus of birds gently invogorates me. There's a freshness in the air and distant memories of pleasant times come to me. I see new things and think new ideas. The 12th house can't be as bad as it's sometimes described. Surely the Sun would tell. I think sometimes you have to follow common sense, don't you?

Please read The Book of Hiram by Knight and Lomas. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Please also read my book! www.encosm.net.

KennethM

Hi Kenneth

It's been a very interesting thread . . . however . . .

You are right that there are different kinds of knowing.

For me, there is the knowledge of rational experimental research and there is also the shared knowledge of common sense, which I believe comes from "practical research."

Sometimes you just have to believe?

That's a good belief. Gauquelin wanted to know not so much the "why" but the "how."

Oh dear. . . anybody up for the eternal Fate vs Free Will?

For me, there is the knowledge of rational experimental research and there is also the shared knowledge of common sense, which I believe comes from "practical research." We all learned astrology, so this "knowledge" must have come from somewhere. We are all building on the knowledge we learned.

Did the ancient Babylonian and Chinese astrologers keep such extensive records in order to verify their findings against the historical record and reduce their bias? And if they used the same method that scientists used today, did they do so in order to achieve the same *objective*? Ancient science was not separate from religious thought and philosophy, indeed science itself is always relative to its time. Modern science separates the rational human observer from nature, which is now a realm of impersonal objects to be studied or exploited by man. Ludwig Edelstein observed that explanation, classification and systematization are not foreign to ancient mythologies; pre-Socratic science aimed at understanding 'the essence of things.' However, ancient science 'was not a mere knowledge nor was it a mere technique; it preserved an awareness of the meaning of the universe and retained a place for values within the world of facts.' Ancient science was not therefore committed to an embedded rationality; it was a way of presenting the relationship of the living Earth to the rest of the universe.

In his 'Dictionary of Astrology,' Fred Gettings writes: 'It is worth observing that this (the use of the statistical approach to large groups of horoscopes) in no way diminishes traditional astrology, which is itself designed to relate only to the unique individual chart, and it has never (until comparatively recent times, in the work of Krafft, Gauquelin, and so on) been regarded as susceptible to statistical interpolation and analysis, the very uniqueness of the individual chart seeming to prohibit such an approach.'

'Military men are indicated by both Mars and Jupiter in the g-sectors...Moon in the g-sectors is indicated in the charts of writers.' Are their prominent military men who do not have both Mars and Jupiter in the g-sectors? Are their prominent writers who do not have the Moon in the g-sectors? And how subjective are the criteria used to determine the prominence of any particular writer? Is a writer prominent because academia has decided he or she is prominent, or is a writer prominent because his or her works are actually read on a regular basis by the reading (i.e., non-illiterate) public?

Hi Andrew,

Ancient science was not separate from religious thought and philosophy, indeed science itself is always relative to its time.

However, ancient science 'was not a mere knowledge nor was it a mere technique; it preserved an awareness of the meaning of the universe and retained a place for values within the world of facts.'

Whether astrology was religious or not, to me it seems self-evident that the more wise ancient astrologers would try to reduce their bias. Bias that favored certain individuals or certain values would be an unsafe practice as regimes and the times changed. Hence the record keeping, which gave astrologers a measure of objectivity and safety, and was perhaps the beginning of science.

I do believe that astrology has objectified values as the signs, as I describe in my book. Beginning in the Enlightenment, but especially in the mid to late 20th century, science has independently learned ways of objectifying values, and the findings have close parallels to astrology.

'It is worth observing that this (the use of the statistical approach to large groups of horoscopes) in no way diminishes traditional astrology, which is itself designed to relate only to the unique individual chart...

The meanings of traditional astrology applied to the individual must have come from somewhere. The ancients had a method of finding the meanings from their recorded and collective knowledge, which they applied to individual charts. We know they collected records, because literally tons of them still exist today.

Are their prominent military men who do not have both Mars and Jupiter in the g-sectors? Are their prominent writers who do not have the Moon in the g-sectors?

The more eminent the person, the more likely the associated planets will be in the g-sectors, as Suitbert Ertel has so strikingly demonstrated. In other words, the individuals without the associated planets are being forced out as the ranks increase. It would be a good idea to test Ertel's curve over time because in an increasingly specialized world the top ranks may become increasingly harder to attain without the associated planets. There are exceptions. To Gauquelin, Einstein was all the more remarkable because he was a scientist with a g-sector Jupiter instead of the expected Saturn. Gauquelin delighted in describing how Einstein was "different."

And how subjective are the criteria used to determine the prominence of any particular writer?

The criteria for all of the studies were very objective. Gauquelin's enemies took care of that part especially well. They did their own tests with their own collected data, using criteria they intensely examined and agree to. They were all eminently qualified scientists, for example one of them was later to became Chairman of the Department of Biostatistic at Harvard. They got the same sorts of distributions as Gauquelin. You would recognize many of the names used in Gauquelin's samples because the individuals are all world renowned. www.encosm.net/mars_effect.htm

KennethM

You would recognize many of the names used in Gauquelin's samples because the individuals are all world renowned.

Richard Bach, William Blatty, Peter Benchley, Erskine Caldwell, Joseph Heller, Harper Lee, Colleen McCullough, Grace Metalious, Margaret Mitchell, George Orwell, Mario Puzo, Harold Robbins and JD Salinger have all sold in excess of 10,000,000 copies of their books in both hardcover and paperback worldwide. Clearly, their books are well read, with mass appeal. I wonder if any of these writers have the Moon in the Gauquelin sectors. I have some research to do.

Sometimes you just have to believe?

Yes, sometimes. Belief has it's basis in some rationale ... even if the rationale isn't always apparant. Perhaps the wisdom lies in suspending judgement until the rationale becomes apparant and is understood?

anybody up for the eternal Fate vs Free Will?

One versus the other?
What if Fate = the Ultimate Destination and Free Will = all the choices under the Sun as to how they arrive at that ultimate destination? That Fate & Free Will work hand-in-hand instead of either/or?
Guess it depends on what verse one chooses to sing.
Simply a thought.

What if Fate = the Ultimate Destination and Free Will = all the choices under the Sun as to how they arrive at that ultimate destination? That Fate & Free Will work hand-in-hand instead of either/or?

This may be a different discussion thread, but I would say there are three things to consider here. Fate, free will, and destiny.

In the modern world we could consider "fate" to be the result of "natural laws," such as the attraction of magnetic north and south, E=mc^2, the orbits of the planets, etc. Deterministic science is essentially an effort to reduce the world to fatalism. The scientists who promote this world view above all others are what I would call fatalistic.

Naturally, free will is what what you choose, and because (at least natal) astrology consists of fuzzy clusters of meanings, there is a good deal of room for free will in the living of a life.

Destiny is where you actually end up as a result of free will and fate. It's your landmark destinations. You do a lot of choosing to create your own destinies. Your destinations are not totally free will, but you work with the genes and natal configuration that you've been given.

KennethM

This may be a different discussion thread,

I did start a new one but it ended up in Mundane instead of Philosophy (is that destiny at work? )

I did start a new one but it ended up in Mundane instead of Philosophy (is that destiny at work? )

(lol) ? perhaps Fate if it ?ended? in the Mundane world by ?arriving? at destiny?s gate.
(Fate/ destiny) = 1 destination that illuminates 2 directions?

Thanks for the pointer ? will pop across to see if I can help oil the gate?s hinges and learn something new in the process!