Skyscript Astrology Forum

As astrologers, we usually interpret public facts posthumously. We obtain the relevant information from the media. When do we actually know that the information we work with and interpret is true and correct? How do we know whether an event that we interpret astrologically actually took place and, above all, took place in the way the press presents it to us?

Can we recognize something like this astrologically or do we incorporate the information presented into our astrological structure?

Yesterday evening I saw and heard an interview with a well-known German late night entertainer in the media library, in which he told an interesting story at the end of the interview.

He was previously asked by the moderator how he experienced his childhood, whereupon he sang praises about his family and the good climate and mutual loyalty.

In this context, he said that his father was now dead and that one day, shortly after his death, he was photographed by a cameraman before a performance when he had just fallen asleep during a break and was hanging his head. The newspaper then took the photo published with the comment "Harry mourns his father".

In fact, he was just a little tired. But, he had to admit, this photo couldn't have been better for showcasing grief, and any actual photo of grief would have been worse.

The interview then ended with the entertainer's philosophical statement: Basically, only the fake is really real.

George Michael: Theres no comfort in the truth, pain is all you find.

A few times in my life I have had, so to speak, insider knowledge of matters that were reported in the media.

In none of these cases did the (German) press report truthfully. There was probably not always a conspiracy behind it. But the truth can rarely be marketed well. The truth is usually far too boring to generate large print runs and millions of clicks.

How does astrology deal with the topic of truth?

"Tell the truth or trump - but get the trick"
Mark Twain

Ist the truth just for the not holy people pilatesq?

Jakob wrote: Sun May 19, 2024 4:07 pm How does astrology deal with the topic of truth?

Jacob: That's a great question. As astrologers we are stuck working with the information that's out there, and sometimes, especially with celebrities and the media, things get twisted. There's no foolproof way to know everything's 100% accurate.

The best we can do is acknowledge the potential for bias and focus on the bigger astrological themes of the event. So, in that interview, the photo itself, even if staged, becomes a powerful symbol of grief in the public eye.

For truth, we have to be critical thinkers. That means looking at different sources and considering other viewpoints. Sometimes, the most impactful stories aren't the most factual ones. But this is easier said and done. With all of the misinformation that abounds in our media saturated lives, the struggle gets increasingly harder. One look at the state of the American media is enough to give you shudders. It seems there is little ethics left in journalism from even older, respectable sources.

I wish I had a better answer.

AJ wrote: Sun May 19, 2024 11:12 pm

Jakob wrote: Sun May 19, 2024 4:07 pm How does astrology deal with the topic of truth?

Jacob: That's a great question. As astrologers we are stuck working with the information that's out there, and sometimes, especially with celebrities and the media, things get twisted. There's no foolproof way to know everything's 100% accurate.

The best we can do is acknowledge the potential for bias and focus on the bigger astrological themes of the event. So, in that interview, the photo itself, even if staged, becomes a powerful symbol of grief in the public eye.

For truth, we have to be critical thinkers. That means looking at different sources and considering other viewpoints. Sometimes, the most impactful stories aren't the most factual ones. But this is easier said and done. With all of the misinformation that abounds in our media saturated lives, the struggle gets increasingly harder. One look at the state of the American media is enough to give you shudders. It seems there is little ethics left in journalism from even older, respectable sources.

I wish I had a better answer.

Good morning AJ, the problem continues. It is not only a matter of the event, which the media may not describe correctly and the astrologers interpret as they are described, but sometimes this event did not even take place at all. What instrument do we have as astrologers to be able to determine this? Jakob

Jakob wrote: Mon May 20, 2024 6:10 am Good morning AJ, the problem continues. It is not only a matter of the event, which the media may not describe correctly and the astrologers interpret as they are described, but sometimes this event did not even take place at all. What instrument do we have as astrologers to be able to determine this? Jakob

Hello Jakob: One of the first steps is to verify the event using multiple reliable sources. Checking for consistency across different news outlets and platforms can help us determine if an event is credible. Whenever possible, consult primary sources or official records. This includes birth certificates, official announcements, and eyewitness accounts, which are often more reliable than secondary media reports.

Astrologically, it's even more difficult, but here are some ideas. The usual caveat applies; not all axioms work every time in astrology.

In personal consultations, direct verification with clients can be invaluable. Clients’ personal experiences and firsthand accounts provide a more accurate basis for astrological interpretation.

Look for consistency within the astrological chart. If an event seems highly inconsistent with the chart’s indicators and it's been a reliable chart in the past, the report might warrant further scrutiny. If an event’s astrological markers seem off, this raises red flags about its authenticity. In such cases, it’s wise to delve deeper into the source of the information.

If the event doesn't show up in the chart, check the charts of close relatives if possible; sometimes they show clearer there. The most compelling interpretations in a chart are those that are the most simple and straightforward. If you have to struggle and fiddle with the configurations to explain an event, that is a red flag.

A consistent methodology helps eliminate going off track in interpretation. Significant events almost always involve the Angles and/or their lords, the Lights, and/or the Nodes. The hard aspects—conjunctions, squares, and oppositions—take precedence over all other aspects. Keep your orbs tight; typically, no more than one degree for transits, progressions, etc. The houses and their rulers involved should correspond to the event. Planets should reflect their traditional significations. Like I said above, the most simple and straightforward interpretations reflect the most significant events.
There are other considerations but these are primary at least for me.

It is easier said than done.
A reliable crystal ball would be of great help, too. LOL

AJ wrote: Mon May 20, 2024 10:08 am

Jakob wrote: Mon May 20, 2024 6:10 am Good morning AJ, the problem continues. It is not only a matter of the event, which the media may not describe correctly and the astrologers interpret as they are described, but sometimes this event did not even take place at all. What instrument do we have as astrologers to be able to determine this? Jakob

Hello Jakob: One of the first steps is to verify the event using multiple reliable sources. Checking for consistency across different news outlets a.....

Hi AJ, a crime is said to have happened somewhere in the woods of West Virginia. The media report on it. One source is the Washington Post, the other the New York Times. Two different sources. Alternative media also report on it. No one was there. But who do you believe?



Jakob

hi jakob

it's an interesting question for the philosophical section here.. thanks for raising it... if all our information is gotten via the media, the media then becomes the filter for what we see in the larger world outside our own personal world... george orwells book 1984 had a lot to say on that.... from what i read of the dynamics in germany today, one can be charged with any number of crimes for speaking ''the truth'' publicly, so perhaps this question is especially dear to you given the country you personally live in..

i think it is easier to seek alternative viewpoints that contrast with each other to help formulate what is going on in the world today.. even with the helicopter crash in iran yesterday - one gets any number of question marks surrounding the physical event of the crash... so truth is essentially impossible to know, unless it is something very specific like the score in a hockey game or something like that... when it comes to a lot of world events, knowing the history is helpful, but again - it is hard to get at the truth of that too... human bias is evident everywhere... i have no idea how to get at ''the truth'' but instead seek a compromise, lol..

james_m wrote: Mon May 20, 2024 4:32 pm hi jakob

it's an interesting question for the philosophical section here.. thanks for raising it... if all our information is gotten via the media, the media then becomes the filter for what we see in the larger world outside our own personal world... george orwells book 1984 had a lot to say on that.... from what i read of the dynamics in germany today, one can be charged with any number of crimes for speaking ''the truth'' publicly, so perhaps this question is especially dear to you given the country you personally live in..

i think it is easier to seek alternative viewpoints that contrast with each other to help formulate what is going on in the world today.. even with the helicopter crash in iran yesterday - one gets any number of question marks surrounding the physical event of the crash... so truth is essentially impossible to know, unless it is something very specific like the score in a hockey game or something like that... when it comes to a lot of world events, knowing the history is helpful, but again - it is hard to get at the truth of that too... human bias is evident everywhere... i have no idea how to get at ''the truth'' but instead seek a compromise, lol..

Hi James,

It was about November 2022, a year and a half ago, when I went for a walk in the evening because the weather was still very mild. In the neighboring town, I sat down in a restaurant or outside at one of the tables and ordered a glass of wine. After a few minutes, two attractive women of my age sat down with me at the table.

We immediately started talking. They came from another region of Germany. They told me with enthusiasm that they had just come from a weekend seminar on astrosophia. This quickly brought us to astrology.

I told them that I had been working on it for almost 40 years, sometimes more intensively, sometimes less. One of the two ladies showed me the picture of her horoscope only very briefly on her I Phone. No longer than 15 seconds.

I spontaneously asked her if she had a major move or change of location when she was about 20 years old. She said in amazement that she fled to Germany at the age of 20.

I don't want to brag about it. That is not the point. Because each of us astrologers has our areas in which we are good. For me, this topic is also about what astrology should actually be.

Jakob

jakob

thanks for your response here! fascinating and i love your additional interest - "For me, this topic is also about what astrology should actually be." that may be an even more interesting question to consider... i will ponder that on my walk today...

Jakob wrote: Mon May 20, 2024 4:20 pm ...a crime is said to have happened somewhere in the woods of West Virginia. The media report on it. One source is the Washington Post, the other the New York Times. Two different sources. Alternative media also report on it. No one was there. But who do you believe?

Jakob: That's a tricky situation. With no firsthand witnesses, evaluating the credibility of the reports becomes crucial. In situations like this, where multiple sources report on a crime that allegedly occurred in a remote area, it’s crucial to approach the information with a healthy degree of skepticism and critical thinking.
I thought James had a good general approach to popular media, "i think it is easier to seek alternative viewpoints that contrast with each other to help formulate what is going on in the world today..."
This would not be enough to get at the 'truth' in your example scenario. If I were to really try and evaluate the reliability of the reports, I mean, really, go down the rabbit hole. I would first check for consistency. Compare the reports from different sources, using your examples, the Washington Post and the New York Times. Look for common details and see if the main facts align. Consistency across reputable sources can lend credibility to the information.

Consider the reputation and reliability of the sources. This is much harder; even news that you have come to trust will often make mistakes or regurgitate unverified sources. The Washington Post and the New York Times are generally known for rigorous journalistic standards, such as they are in our media-driven society. I thought James' example of the recent helicopter crash that killed the Iranian president was appropriate. Compare this to the credibility of the alternative media sources reporting the event. Consistency and alignment across reports again.

See if any of the reports mention primary evidence or firsthand accounts. This could include statements from law enforcement, witnesses, or any physical evidence from the crime scene.

Check if local West Virginia news outlets or authorities have reported on the crime. Local sources might provide additional context or details not covered by national outlets.

Look for official statements from local law enforcement or government officials. These can provide more reliable information about the crime and its investigation status.

Be cautious with alternative media. While they can offer different perspectives, they sometimes lack the rigorous fact-checking standards of established news organizations.

Given these steps, you can make a more informed judgment about the credibility of the reports. If major reputable sources like the Washington Post and the New York Times provide consistent and corroborated details, it’s more likely that the event occurred as reported. However, always remain open to new information and updates as investigations progress.

From an astrological perspective, you could also look at the charts of key dates and times related to the event for any significant alignments. However, remember that astrology complements rather than replaces factual investigation.

After going through all of this, would you know the truth of the situation?
There will always be a cloud of uncertainty surrounding any event, I think in the end, all we can hope for is making it as small as possible.

Interesting topic. Sometimes it is easier to define what constitutes a lie as people can lie by stating something is 'true'

• when they have no knowledge either way
• because they believe what they are saying is true
• because they've conflated a little knowledge into a full blown knowledge of the truth [Dunning-Kruger Effect]
• to avoid hurting someone (little 'white' lies)
• when they know full well that it is not true (often to protect themselves or another or to manipulate another)

For me, only the last statement is a 'true lie' although some may be justified; so, in most (nearly all) cases, trying to determine what is 'true' about anything means trying to identify the source of the claim and who's making it, then judge accordingly. No easy feat and one made even harder when discussing claims about non-physical events plus I've undoubtedly missed listing any number of other ways one can lie.