Skyscript Astrology Forum

Therese wrote:
Perhaps that's how the divinatory approach came to be: there were too many misfits in the tropical zodiac, so a kind of intuition or sixth sense had to be developed. And that can be part of astrology too, an evolution of sorts.

Mark replied:
I would take my hat off to you Therese (if I had one!)

Somehow you manage to turn around a powerful critique of your basic approach to astrology into an argument that this somehow backs up the sidereal zodiac!...

Thank you, Mark.

I think the tropical zodiac works very well as far I am concerned.

Of course! The majority of tropical astrologers would agree with you. When I say the sidereal zodiac is "real," I mean it has a definite unchanging relationship to the sky. This is most clearly seen in the 27 lunar mansions which are actually called "constellations" in India in recognition of their link to the stars and asterisms.

Mark wrote:

You obviously believe astrology can be made to conform to scientific principles and empirical testing. All we need is the ideal research study and all our disagreements will be resolved.
I personally, think that view is totally flawed because its based on a misunderstanding of how astrology actually works.

Therese replied:

Perhaps both approaches have their place depending on whether one is a practitoner working with clients in the psychological sense (divination) or providing a foundation for an astrological system in the "laboratory" (science).

This touches a very interesting question:

Is astrology a science?

If what you mean by science is a study subject to statistical research and rigorous prove, then my personal attempt at the answer would be: no.

As I mentioned earlier, statistical research contains so many trickeries ? all the more when it comes down to psychological matters, with inevitably so much subjectivity involved. Remarkably, this method has not even been able to rigorously prove the effectiveness of any of the more common approaches to psychotherapy.

Astrology faces additional problems in this respect , the universal uncertainty about exact birth times being just one of them.

I do not, however, deny the possibility that statistical research methods may be applicable to certain more simple aspects of astrology in limited areas.

All this notwithstanding the fact that just very recently, scientist in the areas of methodology and mathematics started finding fault with some of the basic tenets of statistical research itself. But that's another story. (Sorry James, I haven't been able to find the reference yet, but I keep looking for it!)

My personal suspicion is that the observer's subjective outlook influences the outcome of statistical studies much more than is currently understood, regardless of how much scientific scrutiny is being applied.

Quantum mechanics can teach us many a lesson here; the most basic one being the observation that an electron can appear both as a particle and as a wave, solely depending which of the two (mutually exclusive!) traits the observer focusses on.

Nevertheless, there are still a number of physicists in hope of soon resolving all the open questions of creation in one single TOE (Theory Of Everything).

Needless to say, astrology and all other things related to metaphysics are generally not intended to be part of the picture, but that's another story, again.

Indeed, such an endeavour could be seen as a great philosophical naivety in light of the fact that we don't even understand yet what roughly 90% of our universe consists of. So physicists simply talk of ?dark matter? and ?dark energy?, respectively, when, what's really in the dark, is the grey matter between their ears.

But if academic science would one day arrive at some all-inclusive mathematical theory of creation, my prophecy is that this ultimate answer wouldn't have much more value than the supercomputer Deep Ford (in Douglas Adam's famous ?Hitch-hiker?s Guide to the Galaxy?) proclaiming - after aeons of calculation - that the answer to the question about ?Life, The Universe, and Everything? is simply the number 42.

And much like in that hilarious story, our academic scientists, after finding their answer, will have to spend time on-end defining properly what the question really was to begin with!

Above, Mark wrote something I really liked:

There are many different ways of looking at things and I am not just referring to zodiacs. Reality may be more complex and diverse than many of us appreciate.

Funnily, over on the general forum in my "10th Equal house cusp verses MC" thread, the debate regarding which of the various house systems is the ?correct? one to use is strongly reminiscent of our talk here. In that thread, presently Atlantean is holding a position similar to yours, Therese, trying his best to convince us others that Topocentric is the true and only way to go.

Michael

Michael Sternbach wrote:
My personal suspicion is that the observer's subjective outlook influences the outcome of statistical studies much more than is currently understood, regardless of how much scientific scrutiny is being applied.

i share michaels viewpoint. i think it's very true in astrological circles where many conclusions are made as well.. the one unwilling to consider their own subjective outlook is the one most fanatical about the 'correctness' of it.. you've highlighted this in the quote below..
the parallel is quite fascinating and reminds me of what it's like trying to have a conversation with anyone who has there mind 'made up' while at the same time trying to convince others who will listen of the 'correctness' of their viewpoint(s) as well.. oh well..

Michael Sternbach wrote: As a matter of fact, the debate regarding which of the various house systems is the ?correct? one to use is strongly reminiscent of our talk here. In that thread, presently Atlantean is holding a position similar to yours, trying his best to convince us others that Topocentric is the true and only way to go.

Michael

Therese Hamilton wrote:It's my tricky Scorpio Mercury which actually operates on almost pure intuition due to the opposition of Uranus. Whatever I say will often automatically causes the other person to expose parts of themselves they would prefer to keep hidden.
Therese

i think it works in reverse where you (accidentally) reveal aspects of your thinking that you'd prefer to keep hidden.. mercury in the 12th ruling an angle?

Therese Hamilton wrote:RodJM wrote:

The problem of what zodiac is the true zodiac I believe began with this approx date of 200 A.D according to Nick Fiorenza.

Rod, that's the first time I've heard of a 200 AD zero date and Nick Fiorenza. The most common zero dates are 221 (Fagan/Bradley), 285 (Lahiri) and 291 (Krishnamurti). Until astrologers get around to testing those ayanamsas, we won't have "one true zodiac."

The site you referenced has some nice graphics. Thanks for the link.

By the way I said I believed there was an ideal astrology, but didn't use the phrase "one true zodiac." (Though one may exist.) But through many centuries the zodiac may shift a bit. Or at least sign meanings may shift a little as the stars in the constellations change their positions (proper motion). But that takes a LONG time--many thousands of years.

Well, "approx date of 200 A.D." is exactly that, its approximate only. I'd have thought Indian astrologers would have tested this with there Jyotisha astrology by now. I mean how long has their version of astrology been around for now? thousands of years no doubt. I'm no expert, but they probably argue amongst themselves over this separation of tropical to sidereal date, (bit like western astrologers??) and how they view it.

So only the graphics got you on that website? that's shallow, coming from someone like yourself Therese... nothing what he states makes any sense?

Well, I firmly believe there is "one true zodiac" in so far as what our present limited human consciousness can comprehend.

Mark wrote:Rod JM wrote:

I do agree with you about the "one true zodiac". What else could there be? there is one sky we are all looking at in the universe from which we derive our zodiac constellations right?

Hi Rod,

There are many different ways of looking at things and I am not just referring to zodiacs. Reality may be more complex and diverse than many of us appreciate.

Ever read the Geoffrey Cornelius book 'The Moment of Astrology'? Whether you ultimately agree with Cornelius or not it is surely one of the most thought provoking books on astrology ever written. It will challenge some of your most basic assumptions about what we are doing in astrology.

http://www.amazon.com/Moment-Astrology- ... 1902405110

Another book I would highly recommend you take a look at is ''Under One Sky''.

In that book 12 well known astrologers (all using completely different approaches) delineated one natal chart blind!

http://www.forrestastrology.com/store/b ... sky-detail

http://www.amazon.com/Under-One-Sky-Raf ... er+one+sky

Mark

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the recommendations, but I'm busy at the moment reading Edward Smith's The Soul's Long Journey
Basically, its about how the bible reveals reincarnation. Deep stuff huh? you bet! love it!

Michael wrote :

Is astrology a science?

If you what you mean by science is a study subject to statistical research and rigorous prove, then my personal attempt at the answer would be no.

Although I believe the Gauquelins did us a great favor by isolating traits for planets in their extensive and labor intensive research, in general I?m not in favor of statistics applied to astrology. I think small demonstrations tell us more, such as I?m doing with Aries and Mars on the latest sidereal thread.

When I was in school and had the choice of working on a statistics laden Ph.D. in psychology or psychological counseling, I chose counseling. So although I do think it?s possible to demonstrate certain principles of astrology (such as planetary domiciles and exaltations, etc.), I wouldn?t go the statistics route myself. When a person works too much with numbers and formulas, it really is possible to lose all sense of what astrology is about.

Funnily, over on the general forum in my "10th Equal house cusp verses MC" thread, the debate regarding which of the various house systems is the correctone to use is strongly reminiscent of our talk here. In that thread, presently Atlantean is holding a position similar to yours, Therese, trying his best to convince us others that Topocentric is the true and only way to go.

My approach is to demonstrate how certain principles work in the sidereal zodiac. As for ?trying to convince? anyone, that is up to the individual. I enjoy presenting evidence, and it helps my own understanding as well when I have to organize material for an article or forum. But I?m not really into ?convincing? as such. I submit evidence for a particular principle, that's all.

I suggest that others carefully read and consider the evidence rather than immediately jumping in with an alternate view or opinion, generally submitted without any support whatsoever, especially supporting birth charts. I cannot take such alternate opinions seriously. No evidence or support equals just a lot of hot air.

james_m wrote:

i think it works in reverse where you (accidentally) reveal aspects of your thinking that you'd prefer to keep hidden.. mercury in the 12th ruling an angle?

James, I honestly don?t care what people think of me or what they see or don?t see. Actually, the 12th house is very much ?out there,? and isn?t secret a all. Believe me, when a person gets to a certain age, it simply doesn?t matter!!

RodJM wrote:

Well, "approx date of 200 A.D." is exactly that, its approximate only. I'd have thought Indian astrologers would have tested this with there Jyotisha astrology by now. I mean how long has their version of astrology been around for now?

India has never been into testing astrology. India accepts convention and tradition, and an astrologer will use the astrological tables that happen to be at his disposal.

So only the graphics got you on that website? that's shallow, coming from someone like yourself, Therese... nothing what he states makes any sense?

Rod, I?ve been very busy today, and was away from home this evening. I had no time to do much reading. I only glanced at the site because I had only a few minutes. I do have ?a life? apart from astrology. But (just checking the site now), white text on a dark background starts to dance in front of my eyes. Very difficult to read...probably my age.

Well, I firmly believe there is "one true zodiac" in so far as what our present limited human consciousness can comprehend.

I?ll go with that for the time being. There cannot be two zodiacs in totally different positions in the sky with the same rulerships and principles. It?s just not logical. Well, logic as I see it anyway. I believe that Martin may also lean in the direction of only one zodiac having true validity.

Therese Hamilton wrote:My approach is to demonstrate how certain principles work in the sidereal zodiac. As for ?trying to convince? anyone, that is up to the individual. I enjoy presenting evidence, and it helps my own understanding as well when I have to organize material for an article or forum. But I?m not really into ?convincing? as such. I submit evidence for a particular principle, that's all.

I think the point is, Therese, that the only thing you are demonstrating with your examples is why you believe in a certain principle. When we all look at charts in such a diverse way, using hand-picked examples really proves nothing other than, again, why we believe what we believe. You know that I do support your practical approach though, there is too much theory and 'he said, she said' and not enough demonstration, in my mind.

From what I have seen, claiming there is one "correct" zodiac is likely to make the debate less about your examples and more about your approach as it forces us to question our own basic philosophical foundations. Astrology is a funny thing: you post a chart and say this is signification of such and such a life while I could be looking at the same chart, see the same life but using different means. If we really want to demonstrate the validity of an approach, it seems to me Horary would be the way to go, but the problem still exists: the users of both zodiacs seem to be making correct predictions.

Konrad wrote:

...but the problem still exists: the users of both zodiacs seem to be making correct predictions.

Exactly! But its only really a 'problem' if you buy into a causal, empiricist approach to astrology. That is why I disagree with the views of Therese, Michael and others (Martin Gansten amongst them) that this has to be an either or debate. I see the cosmos as a place where more than one model of astrology can work. That includes different zodiacs.

All we perceive in astrology are emanations of more profound truths. As with Plato's analogy of the cave the 'signs' we perceive in astrology are simply shadow of a higher reality. With this we can often make predictions with some limited degree of success but its never fool proof.

I read recently that a South American Indian tribe use the word 'behind' to describe the future and 'in front' to describe the past. That makes a lot of sense to me. We can clearly see our past as a given but the future is hazy and uncertain. As St Paul said 'we see through a glass, darkly."

As I have pointed out before on Skyscript in modern quantum physics The Copenhagen Interpretation presents us with a cosmos where we can record phenomena as particles or waves but not both simultaneously. Which we detect depends on what we set out to record in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

I think a very similar thing is happening in astrology where we choose to align our consciousness with a particular set of tools-zodiac, rulership scheme, house system etc.

The observer is not detached from the phenomena they observe. Their consciousness is a participant in the process. The physicist David Bohm, who worked with Einstein, suggested this in his classic work Wholeness and Implicate Order .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wholeness-Impli ... 0415289793

There is also the so called Participatory universe model developed by the physicist John Wheeler.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/john ... -universe/

From the article:

Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: ?no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.? He coined the term ?Participatory Anthropic Principle? (PAP) from the Greek ?anthropos?, or human. He went further to suggest that ?we are participants in bringing into being not only the near and here, but the far away and long ago.? [Reference: Radio Interview With Martin Redfern]

This claim was considered rather outlandish until his thought experiment, known as the ?delayed-choice experiment,? was tested in a laboratory in 1984. This experiment was a variation on the famous ?double-slit experiment? in which the dual nature of light was exposed (depending on how the experiment was measured and observed, the light behaved like a particle (a photon) or like a wave).

Unlike the original ?double-slit experiment?, in Wheeler?s version, the method of detection was changed AFTER a photon had passed the double slit. The experiment showed that the path of the photon was not fixed until the physicists made their measurements. The results of this experiment, as well as another conducted in 2007, proved what Wheeler had always suspected ? observers? consciousness is required to bring the universe into existence. This means that a pre-life Earth would have existed in an undetermined state, and a pre-life universe could only exist retroactively.

This is why I believe the statistical approach to astrology is doomed to failure. Yet it seems many astrologers are still wedded to a Newtonian/Cartesian or Aristotelian world view of simple cause and effect where the observer is can be totally detached from the world around them.

Mark

Mark wrote:Exactly! But its only really a 'problem' if you buy into a causal, empiricist approach to astrology. That is why I disagree with the views of Therese, Michael and others (Martin Gansten amongst them) that this has to be an either or debate.

I'd have preferred to stay out of this discussion, but as my name has been mentioned, let me make three points to clarify my own position:

1. You certainly don't need to take either a causal or an empiricist approach to astrology (the two are not necessarily connected) in order to believe that A cannot be non-A -- for example, that Jupiter at any given time cannot be simultaneously in domicile (Sagittarius) and in fall (Capricorn).

2. Any astrologer using any zodiac will almost always base his or her judgements on a variety of factors, only some of which will be zodiac-dependent. Indeed, the principle of semantic redundancy is often explicitly invoked by astrologers (we like to see several 'testimonies' of the same thing in a chart in order to be sure). This obviously increases the chances of two astrologers differing on certain points of technique (be it zodiacs, house systems, or whatever) both making correct judgements about a chart. Such an occurrence does not prove that the technical assumptions of both must be equally right, or arbitrary. (Besides which it is, depressingly, much more common for both astrologers to be wrong, except in a 50-50 shot.)

3. As for my personal philosophical views, I most certainly do not take a causal view of astrology; I am not an empiricist; and I do think it fairly obvious that astrology is a divinatory practice. But divination, to me, does not imply randomness, the absence of objective correlates, or the principe of 'anything goes'. Rather, I see it as 'decoding impersonal patterns of reality' (E. M. Zuesse).

@James:

Therese Hamilton wrote:
It's my tricky Scorpio Mercury which actually operates on almost pure intuition due to the opposition of Uranus. Whatever I say will often automatically causes the other person to expose parts of themselves they would prefer to keep hidden.
Therese

james_m replied:
i think it works in reverse where you (accidentally) reveal aspects of your thinking that you'd prefer to keep hidden.. mercury in the 12th ruling an angle?

In this context, and for the benefit of our readers, I notice that, besides the DESC, Mercury is also ruling Therese's Nonagesimal which happens to be in exact conjunction to Neptune in his detriment in Virgo.

No offense, Therese.


@Konrad: re yours Sat May 03, 2014 10:16 am

You captured my thoughts exactly, Konrad. Except that I would say (as you indicate yourself) that horary isn't able to answer this question.


@Mark:

But its only really a 'problem' if you buy into a causal, empiricist approach to astrology. That is why I disagree with the views of Therese, Michael and others (Martin Gansten amongst them) that this has to be an either or debate. I see the cosmos as a place where more than one model of astrology can work. That includes different zodiacs.

I am not sure why you would include me in this list, Mark.

I very much agree with your view here, that's why I have quoted it above.

Yes, there can be more than one valid outlook on all things astrological, that's why I don't consent if someone is saying theirs is the only correct approach. All the more when they are stating that all the others got it wrong but don't offer unambiguous evidence themselves.

I do think that any system of divination to be taken seriously must be standing on a sound epistemological foundation as well as find back-up in experience.

Thanks for elaborating my reference to quantum mechanics, and giving specific links.

I think a very similar thing is happening in astrology where we choose to align our consciousness with a particular set of tools-zodiac, rulership scheme, house system etc.

Yes, that's what I'm thinking, too. This would explain why i.e. Jyotish seems to function quite as well as Western astrology.

I do find it interesting, however, to study how different system relate to each other, historically, astronomically, and philosophically.

Konrad wrote:

I think the point is, Therese, that the only thing you are demonstrating with your examples is why you believe in a certain principle. When we all look at charts in such a diverse way, using hand-picked examples really proves nothing other than, again, why we believe what we believe. You know that I do support your practical approach though, there is too much theory and 'he said, she said' and not enough demonstration, in my mind.

Konrad, I don't agree that examples prove nothing other than what someone believes. It's possible to demonstrate more than that in a concrete sense, if only by comparisons. Later today I'll try to find time to move your quote above to the topic asking if tropical traits belong to the underlying sidereal sign, so I can reply in context: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8258 If you have time, please check that topic later today or tomorrow. Thank you.

Martin makes crucial points when he says:

1. You certainly don't need to take either a causal or an empiricist approach to astrology (the two are not necessarily connected) in order to believe that A cannot be non-A -- for example, that Jupiter at any given time cannot be simultaneously in domicile (Sagittarius) and in fall (Capricorn).
(...)
But divination, to me, does not imply randomness, the absence of objective correlates, or the principle of anything goes'. Rather, I see it as 'decoding impersonal patterns of reality' (E. M. Zuesse)

However, I'm not sure of the meaning of "decoding impersonal patterns of reality" according to E.M. Zuesse. Martin, could I ask you to elaborate?

I believe all of us posting here would agree that astrology as a practice is divinatory. But it would be very helpful if someone would post a definition of "divinatory" in the astrological sense in one paragraph or less for the benefit of those who may not completely understand the term.