Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:21 pm**

I haven't seen the original article, but it has evoked some excellent and enjoyable responses by Chris Brennan http://apotelesmatics.com/ and Ben Dykes http://bendykes.com/blog/ . Also Steven Birchfield has given his own comment to the subject of psychology and astrology http://www.bendykes.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=35 . In fact we should be grateful to Perry for evoking writers of this caliber to write text of this kind of authority for traditional astrology.

Here?s one tasting from Dykes? article, which is especially delicious:

In terms of traditional astrology being immature, it is worth noting that despite Perry?s boasting about how Evolved and adult and conscious psychological astrology is, his attitude and claims unwittingly turn him into a smug teenager angry with Mom and Dad. What sort of things would such a teenager say? Mom and Dad have too many rules, many of which make no sense to him; they overcomplicate matters; they are too old-fashioned in their views of good and evil, unlike the sophisticated teenager who sees all the grey. He would be dismissive and pretentious. He would say that Mom and Dad have forgotten about really feeling life, being free, envisioning alternative experiences. Their world is one of straight lines and sharp corners, whereas his life is full of curves. Their life is cramped and fearful, but he stands before the glorious horizon, bravely greeting the dawning Sun. Mom and Dad make too many judgments about people, and love giving advice?why can?t they just leave people (and especially him) alone to make their own decisions? Adults are always worrying about money, jobs, health, but only he really understands that it?s the process, the experience, that matters. Or more to the point, why can?t they understand how Wise and Evolved he is?

I once made a study about astrologer?s lunar phases, and there seemed to emerge a certain pattern:

- Many scientific astrologers, interested in statistical study, large databases or similar approach, have the first lunar phase (0-90 degrees). Examples: Marc Penfield, Jean Baptiste Morin, Maurice McCann, J. Lee Lehmann, Michel Gauquelin, Michael P. Munkasey, Geoffrey Dean, Ed Steinbrecher.

- Many psychological astrologers, interested in archetypes etc., have the second lunar phase (90-180 degrees). Examples: Jeff Green, Bruno Huber, Liz Greene, Michael Harding, Barbara Hand Clow, Stephen Arroyo, Zane B. Stein, Bil Tierney.

- The third group might be called as ?public astrologers? for the lack of a better term. Here we find astrologers who deal with the big audience, and with techniques that fit for that purpose (Sun sign astrology, high profile internet sites, writing regularly in big astrological magazines, etc.). Examples: Bob Marks, Bruce Scofield, Tracy Marks, Linda Goodman, Maya Del Mar, Charles Harvey, Nick Campion, Kim Farnell, Thorwald Dethlefsen, Alois Treindl, Nicholas Culpeper, Noel Tyl, Dennis Elwell, John Partridge, William Lilly, Penny Thornton, Alan Leo, Olivia Barclay, Bernadette Brady.

- The last group (270-360 degrees) consists of ?philosophical astrologers? or ?gurus?. It?s the group of teachers and founders of schools, they are often capable of attract a devoted group of followers. Examples: Zipporah Dobyns, John Frawley, Julia Parker, Marc Edmund Jones, Sue Tompkins, Ivy Goldstein Jacobson, Michel de Nostradamus, Isabel M. Hickey, Demetra George, Reinhold Ebertin, Dane Rudhyar, Llewellyn George, Rob Hand, Frances Sakoian, Maritha Pottenger, Joseph Crane, Ken Gillman, John Addey, Alfred Witte, Alphee Lavoie.

So we can see that psychological astrology seems to associate with the second lunar phase, the illustrative ?youth? or even ?puberty?, the stormy and vital phase, when everything is new and rapidly growing but not necessarily very seasoned, just like Dykes writes.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:49 pm**

So we can see that psychological astrology seems to associate with the second lunar phase, the illustrative ?youth? or even ?puberty?, the stormy and vital phase, when everything is new and rapidly growing but not necessarily very seasoned, just like Dykes writes.

Oh? Hmmm ...

Chris Brennan attributes "uninformed ravings" to Glenn Perry, whom he characterizes as a "windbag," then notes that he was caught "off guard" by the "rather caustic nature of the article," which "deserves to be rebuked and admonished" with apparently equal vigor and language comparably caustic.

Prof. Dykes criticizes the "contempt" and "ignorance" of Dr. Perry, whom he characterizes as a "whiny teenager," and then offers what appears to be an analysis of adolescent behavior which seems as stereotypical as the arguments he critiques.

While I agree with the general thrust of their critiques, they would have made their arguments more appealing, if not more compelling, if they had made an attempt to reduce the invective that often passes for commentary these days.

Let the superfluous and lust-dieted man ... Feel your power quickly ... And each man have enough.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:24 pm**

Andrew wrote:
While I agree with the general thrust of their critiques, they would have made their arguments more appealing, if not more compelling, if they had made an attempt to reduce the invective that often passes for commentary these days.
Didn't you know that "Commentary" and "Dissent" had merged to form "Dysentery?"

Seriously though, while Perry's article deserves vigorous rebuttal, the ad hominem attacks should be dispensed with.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:27 pm**

Seriously though, while Perry's article deserves vigorous rebuttal, the ad hominem attacks should be dispensed with.

True, but how does one handle deliberate ignorance on such a grand scale? Can we take it seriously and therefore validate it. Samuel Johnson once said that there is no answer to stark raving lunacy. This qualifies. I've seen some of Perry's other attacks on traditional astrology and Dykes hit the nail on the head. They are immature. Just what is Perry afraid of that he feels it is important to denigrate a subject he so clearly does not understand?

I'll answer that: Perry and a few others in NCGR want to certify astrologers and part of that certification process would be mandatory psychotherapy sessions conducted by (tsurprise! surprise!), Glenn Perry! Although he wouldn't think of charging for them - would he? Heh.

This is a power grab pure and simple. Perry evidently believes that a large number of well educated traditional astrologers present a threat to his dream of determining who gets certified and who doesn't. Traditionalists can and do practice without reference to Jung or who ever the shrink or guru du jour happens to be. Perry wants to eliminate the competition particularly from a group that is better informed than he.

This is typical of all organizations. Some people join because of interest in the reason for the organization; some like telling people what to do and in Perry's case, how to think. This is silly, and the article is the product of a silly man. It is impossible to take him seriously.

Way to go Ben.

Tom

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:21 pm**

Perry and a few others in NCGR want to certify astrologers and part of that certification process would be mandatory psychotherapy sessions conducted by (surprise! surprise!), Glenn Perry!

Mandatory psychotherapy sessions to certify astrologers? Really?

This seems potentially very Orwellian: bizarre and rather cult-like.

Andrew

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:32 pm**

Mandatory psychotherapy sessions to certify astrologers? Really?

Really. I read this in I think an NCGR newsletter or some NCGR publication a couple of years ago. I may still have it, I'll look. The therapy sessions were to be conducted by Perry or one or two others who presumably had the credentials. They also said the candidate could go to any mental health professional, if they wished and if I recall correctly.

Imagine that for a minute. You call up an MSW or psychologist or whatever and tell them you want to be a certified astrologer and would they please do -- I dont' know what. Write you a reference I guess. Can you see this? No? Neither can I; so this is just a built in market for a couple of shrinks and shrink wannabes.

Their excuse is that they want to be sure the astrologer would make a suitable counsellor. No credentials as a mental health professional are required just approval from Glenn et al and a healthy respect for Sedna.

Perry complains about rules; you should see the rules they wanted to enact. My favorite was that it would be "unethical" and forbiden for an astrolgoer to have sex with a client until six months had passed after the counseling had stopped. These people are a constant source of entertainment. Presumably such illicit relations would be grounds for loss of certification. I think that is over the top. Three and a half months is plenty

Suppose you accept sex for reading the chart? Does that have to stop, too?

I'll poke around my old files. I may have saved this.

Tom

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:59 pm**

I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this, but the people here are genuinely more reasonable and better behaved than on most lists, so here goes.

There was some criticism of the critics here and I decided to look at Chris' and Ben's rebuttals. One at a time please.

I just read Chris' response and although some of the language is a bit strong, it is not seriously offensive, and considering how Perry insulted our intelligence with his article, it is not out of line. For example:

More on the Exaltations

Perry continues to exhibit his ineptitude further down the page when he makes the rather stupid statement that

"In modern astrology, a dispositor is a planet that rules the sign that another planet is in? However, in traditional astrology, a dispositor is a planet that is the exaltation ruler of a sign; thus, if Venus is in Aries, then the Sun would disposit Venus since the Sun is allegedly exalted in Aries. But if the very concept of exaltations is questionable, then the traditional method of assigning and assessing dispositors is likewise thrown into doubt.

OK "stupid" is pejorative, and there may be a synonym that would be less pejorative, but would it have been more accurate?

From The American Heritage Dictionary online

1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. 4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied. 5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

1. Slow to learn or understand. Perry has been on this kick for more than a few years and his knowledge of traditional astrology hasn't significantly increased. over time.

2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. In addition this particular remark, Chris documents careless mistakes in abundance and Perry's remarks speak for themselves.

3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care. ... He claims to have a PhD and if so, he certainly does not lack in intelligence.

3a. foolish or careless. Sorry this fits the remarks Chris quoted and other remarks Perry has made regarding traditional astrology.

4. Stunned, dazed or stupefied. Does not apply

5. Pointless, worthless. Well he was trying to make a point and failed. but given his lack of knowledge what he wrote was worthless.

So I think Chris' use of the word "stupid" accurately describes the paragraph in question. Furthermore, in my opinion the persistent implication in Perry's work that we are all stupid to have faith in traditional astrology requires a strong response. And although I didn't address it, Perry's remarks are inept.

Chris' article is thorough and exposes Perry's ignorance of the subject on which he wrote and his obvious prejudices.

I'll read Ben's next.

Tom

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:30 pm**

I read most of Ben's and Steven Birchfield's posts and recommend them highly. Ben makes the valid point that what is old is not necessarily inferior to what is new, and I note that moderns repeatedly make this accusation.

I like this:

?the greatest lie of all in the sciences and metaphysics: that we are the product of a process of maturation, in which all our knowledge is superior to that of all other cultures; and that we have refined ourselves out of and beyond most of the nonsense that held back previous cultures.? -- John Morrill

John Frawley describes Morrill as: ?the leading contemporary historian of the seventeenth century.

Steven's response hits on one of my favorite arguments, i.e. psychotherapy is not all that it is cracked up to be. If psychotherapy does not "work" or if people will "get better" with or without psychotherapy, what good is psychological astrology? In fact many of the criticisms leveled at astrology can also be leveled at psychotherapy. This is not the place to get involved in all of that, but I'm glad Steven brought it up in this context. People who live in glass houses Mr. Perry, ...

Everyone else will benefit by reading these responses.

Tom

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:10 am**

Correction

In an earlier post I mentioned reading something in NCGR about counseling etc. I could not find the documentation, but I was in touch with an astrologer who remembers things more or less the same way I did, but there needs to be a clarification.

1. It was ISAR (most likely) not NCGR.

2. What I referred to was a proposal or there was an ongoing development of standards etc and it included the psychotherapy sessions. That proposal never made the cut. Instead a counseling skills seminar taught by "professional counselors" was mandatory for certification.

3. The sex thing I recalled accurately but it was dropped.

ISAR adopted a certification system and code of ethics that can be viewed on their website that is somewhat less Orwellian than I wrote about, but my source vaguely recalled the proposals they way I recalled them. They just never saw the light of day. All of this occurred about 2002 or maybe earlier which is why our collective memory is foggy. Sadly I have no documents at this time.

Sorry NCGR. I got you confused with ISAR.

Tom

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:22 pm**

Does anyone have a link to Perry's original article?

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:39 pm**

The article is not published on-line. But it does appear to rehash prior attacks on Traditional astrology in articles published on his website.

http://www.aaperry.com/index.asp?pgid=64

2nd paragraph: "Ancient and medieval astrologers were preoccupied with so-called "good" and "bad" planetary positions?malefic planets, evil aspects, debilitations, falls, afflictions, and other such ominous categories of meaning. While they were obviously aware that people were subject to a process of ageing that culminated in death, there was little or no concept of evolution, that is, of the psycho-spiritual growth of the individual. Accordingly, astrology was largely limited to superficial trait descriptions, fated events, and dubious predictions of good and bad times for various enterprises."

And http://www.aaperry.com/index.asp?pgid=20

And he goes at it again: "Such a gloomy determinism was reinforced by a value laden terminology that too often described the birthchart in ominous terms, e.g., malefic, evil aspect, debilitation, affliction, detriment, fall, destroyer of life, hell of the zodiac, and so on. Of course, there were "good" parts to astrology as well, such as benefics and exaltations, but these only served to underscore the determinism of the system. Planets were variously conceived as transmitters of mysterious rays or electromagnetic forces that impacted upon the individual at birth. Understandably, this induced individuals to focus their attention outwards to see what malice or affection the gods might have in store for them. The rigid determinism of traditional astrology did not allow for the possibility of change or growth in consciousness. Instead, people more likely consulted the stars as a means of avoiding a calamitous fate or of exploiting opportunities for manipulating circumstances to personal advantage."

Glenn is an odd duck. In person he is quite affable. However his writing is all about tearing down others in order to prove why his approach to astrology is "best."

For a good laugh: read his article on Pope John Paul II. A psychologically determinist view if I ever saw one.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:42 pm**

Sorry about the bad link:

http://www.aaperry.com/index.asp?pgid=63

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Responses to Glenn Perry's article in the NCGR newsletter

Responses to Glenn Perry's article in the NCGR newsletter

Re: Responses to Glenn Perry's article in the NCGR newslette

Re: Responses to Glenn Perry's article in the NCGR newslette