Skyscript Astrology Forum

This book was recently mentioned in an aside comment in another thread so I thought I?d point out that I?ve just uploaded quite a detailed review by Garry Phillipson which will be very interesting for anyone thinking of buying and wanting to know more about it.

See: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rev_cosmos.html

For a slightly different perspective, please see:

http://www.astroamerica.com/history.html#t52

Among other incisive witticisms, Roell writes:

If I were his teacher & I was handing out grades, Tarnas would get a C ... It was my understanding that Tarnas concludes this book with the claim that we are on the verge of an astrological revolution, i.e., that knowledge & practice of astrology will become both acceptable & commonplace. I've looked for it, but if it's in there, I cannot find it. If this is his idea, it is erroneous. Astrology & astrologers have always been & will always constitute (constellate?) an arrogant elite. We should admit this unpleasant truth to ourselves, and, as individuals, strive to overcome it.

Or, to quote someone else, "We are apt to believe what is pleasant rather than what is true, and become very angry with anyone who destroys an agreeable delusion."

From Andrew?s Roell quote:

Astrology & astrologers have always been & will always constitute (constellate?) an arrogant elite.

If this is true then we should each be left with the bad taste of snobbery in our mouth after quoting our favorite traditional authority. As tempted as I am to find Mr. Roell?s thought appropriate (in fact, I find it very appealing), he then ruins it with:

We should admit this unpleasant truth to ourselves, and, as individuals, strive to overcome it.

Can we ? and why should we try to ? overcome it when we have been told that astrology & astrologers ?will always constitute ... an arrogant elite?? We are doomed to an eternal country club of arrogant elitism. Oh well, it could be worse. We could have been eternally damned to cleaning the science battalion?s latrines.

Mr. Tarnas? book probably does have its flaws, but his ability to express his ideas surely hasn?t found its match in Mr. Roell.

Andrew wrote:

Or, to quote someone else, "We are apt to believe what is pleasant rather than what is true, and become very angry with anyone who destroys an agreeable delusion."

Are Mr. Roell?s ?incisive witticisms? the pleasant and agreeable delusion?

Kirk wrote:If this is true then we should each be left with the bad taste of snobbery in our mouth after quoting our favorite traditional authority.

No more so than the true believer who quotes scripture to support his or her favourite position: if we believe we are correct, why should we feel otherwise?

Can we ? and why should we try to ? overcome it when we have been told that astrology & astrologers ?will always constitute ... an arrogant elite?? We are doomed to an eternal country club of arrogant elitism.

His emphasis seems to be on individual effort to overcome a collective propensity for elitism. Perhaps he despairs of it ever occurring otherwise.

Are Mr. Roell?s ?incisive witticisms? the pleasant and agreeable delusion?

That would depend on your perspective. If you think he's deluded, then you think he's deluded. I don't, so from my perspective, he isn't.