Skyscript Astrology Forum

this question was presented on the horary thread here - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7024 but i believe it is more a philosophical question that i wanted to continue talking about over here..

this is my response to geoffery's ideas who i thank for sharing.. he makes some interesting comments worth considering.

Geoffrey wrote:
This is why horary astrology is not amenable to scientific, statistical verification. Good astrologers will score better than not-so-good astrologers using supposedly the same rules, and there will be no objective way to tell them apart. Science does not deal with subjectivity. The fact that scientific methods are objective is its great strength, it is what makes science repeatable and reliable. But the flip side of that coin is that science has nothing to say about subjectivity. That is the province of art - and isn't that was astrologers were once called - "Artists"?

Geoffrey

the 2 lines that are of interest to me are the idea of astrologers being artists,and the one about science not being able to deal with subjectivity..

i think the idea of astrologers as artists is a good one if you think of astrologers having to move someone to see something a different way then they might have considered before.. astrologer as some type of healer makes sense to me and might be another way to consider this.. what is the goal of the astrologer when doing the astrology? i think it is different when someone makes predictions though. trying to get a feel for the direction something is going in is not the same as making a prediction as i see it.. perhaps this is why many are attracted to astrology - they pick up on the idea that planetary cycles represent trends that might have some bearing on the trends on a more personal level in a persons life... making a hard and fast prediction for example on an election win, or whatever i think is taking an understanding of trends to a more serious level which i believe is the reason why astrologers want to understand the techniques and tools that these same astrologers are using to arrive at these predictions.. chris brennan wrote an article trying to do just this in an attempt to leave open the idea that some techniques might be superior to other techniques in getting at a correct prediction.. it tries to leave out the subjective part by focusing on the techniques while ignoring the disturbing fact that there are so many techniques in present use in astrology that no one technique or approach might be all there is to this..

so, i think the idea of astrologer as artist is a good one up to a point..it would be great if astrologers were able to narrow down the use of a house system to just one for a scientific study, but this is not going to happen.. not to go off on too much of a tangent here but this is one of the many drawbacks to brennans attempts at what is a more scientific type of study of the election results from the predictions of numerous astrologers.. there is something that transcends the technique..

i am not convinced that science is unable to 'deal with subjectivity'..i do think it is arrogant for science to suggest it has all the answers and that it can find them all with the present tools it has at it's disposal.. then again, i find astrologers prone to the same problem with the tools they get attached to.. i think the more innovative types in either field will be open to unseen factors that go into raising more questions and they will remain open to finding out more about something to the point of changing there approach or lines of study..

i apologize for this rambling post here.. setting clear boundaries on what can or can't be gotten thru horary is ultimately a subjective decision on the part of an astrologer.. there might be some strong leadership on the part of those wanting to encourage a particular direction, but that is all it is and it might not alter the strong sense of individuality of some in the astro community from doing there own thing regardless.. maybe that is the art part..

i would like to see someone demonstrate making predictions in astrology in some manner that could be shown to be higher then some random odds.. we hear about it happening.. i recall judith hills book mentioning she had gotten 5 out of 5 correct answers when guessing the persons occupation.. stuff like that might be open to closer scrutiny, but i see very little of this happening.. the french couple tried to show connections between planets and occupations too and of course we know how this feel down into a pit of conflict within the community in a wider sense.. maybe astrology will need to remain on the level of art, as opposed to something more legitimate on some type of scientific level... i am fine with that up to a point.. it gets interesting watching astrologers make predictions, reading their rationale for it, but i am going to have to continue to categorize all this as being subjective in nature and more akin to art then science..

james_m wrote:this question was presented on the horary thread here - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7024 but i believe it is more a philosophical question that i wanted to continue talking about over here..

the 2 lines that are of interest to me are the idea of astrologers being artists, and the one about science not being able to deal with subjectivity..

James, thanks for the link but how is the title of your thread here connected with your interest and your interest with this title?

Johannes

hi johannas

people don't spend time learning about astrology, learning all there is to know, to not be interested in a lot of different pathways to this knowledge- astro or other..

i find your question kinda weird..what you are trying to get at? ii take it you got nothing from anything that i said, or it befuddled you perhaps? thanks! james

Another thread on mundane horaries?

This seems a bit much to me. We already have a thread created by Johannes on the horary forum before this. That itself was a spin off from another thread on the forum. So I dont plan to participate here too.

I do think your following comment was very interesting and worth exploring:

setting clear boundaries on what can or can't be gotten thru horary is ultimately a subjective decision on the part of an astrologer.. there might be some strong leadership on the part of those wanting to encourage a particular direction, but that is all it is and it might not alter the strong sense of individuality of some in the astro community from doing there own thing regardless.. maybe that is the art part..

Maybe you could move some of your comments over to the existing thread set up by Johannes? The whole notion of any kind of 'authority' in astrology is interesting.

Mark

hi mark,
i am not looking to ruffle feathers and i am not interested in hijacking a thread, but i felt that this question was more of a philosophical one and i wanted to have the freedom to respond to it as such.. given some of my experience here of how uptight some folks are about whether something is trad or not, i figured someone would get there nose out of joint with me talking philosophy on the horary channel.. maybe i ought to give myself the freedom regardless.. i am happy to continue on in the horary channel talking philosophy, but based on my past experiences here i thought this was the best approach..

yes the whole notion of authority is indeed interesting and i find myself challenging it on a regular basis!!!!!

so if someone says lilly is the authority on horary they are probably using regio houses and have a fairly static view on what can or can't be asked for horary questions.. is this only out of respect for this man, or is it based on something a bit deeper? if so, what is it? i think you, and geoffery and probably a few others gave the rationale for why certain horary questions can or can't be asked fairly well, but i felt most in line with janis's comments on that thread. however, i am not talking from doing horary.. i am living outside that world, but am an insider from the pov of having a great interest in astrology. this is also why i was confused by johannes response to me here which he has not offered to respond to or help alleviate either.. such is life!

you are perceptive though in acknowledging the main direction of my questioning - who gets to say what is right or what isn't? if the answer to this is based on experience - great.. i think it has to be something more then that though - something like intent which was also discussed on that previous thread.. who gets to decide?

i am the type of person that likes to blur the boundaries between things.. i have a tendency towards some type of universal oceanic viewpoint or something.. maybe someone else can be more articulate but i wanted to talk philosophy not horary and so i am doing it here!@

James_M wrote:

... i wanted to talk philosophy not horary and so i am doing it here!@

ok! :
.

..so if someone says lilly is the authority on horary they are probably using regio houses and have a fairly static view on what can or can't be asked for horary questions.. is this only out of respect for this man, or is it based on something a bit deeper?

I do know what you mean about using a traditional source as if it is the ultimate authority. While I like Lilly and think he was a brilliant astrologer I hate it when his opinion is quoted like the final word in astrological discussions. Some traditionalists (and I do mean only some!) use or misuse Lilly like an evangelical quoting the King James version of the Bible.

Traditional sources are a great resource but ultimately we all need to think through our astrology for ourselves.

I wasn't suggesting certain questions 'cannot ' be asked. I dont like Lee Lehman's term of 'legal' horary questions. I prefer the term radical. For me its more of an issue creating the most supportive conditions for a successful divination. I think the more detached you are from the question the less chance of success you have. In that respect I feel you are potentially abusing horary as a divinatory tool as its reputation is damaged by these kind of public horaries. That is my bottom line position rather than one of trying to tell other astrologers what they can and cannot do. As if that would ever work!

Mark

Mark wrote:
Traditional sources are a great resource but ultimately we all need to think through our astrology for ourselves.

I wasn't suggesting certain questions 'cannot ' be asked. I dont like Lee Lehman's term of 'legal' horary questions. I prefer the term radical. For me its more of an issue creating the most supportive conditions for a successful divination. I think the more detached you are from the question the less chance of success you have. In that respect I feel you are potentially abusing horary as a divinatory tool as its reputation is damaged by these kind of public horaries. That is my bottom line position rather than one of trying to tell other astrologers what they can and cannot do. As if that would ever work!

Mark

hi mark,

thanks for sharing.. i agree with people/astrologers having to think for themselves..

i don't do horary, so it is hard for me to do damage to it! i understand what you are getting at though - i think... public type horaries on world events damages it based on some folks views... if horary is really a form of divination,how is that so? or is this an example of someone defining the boundaries of what horary can or can't do and some others saying they will continue to do what they do which is to ask questions and seek answers thru horary? that is how i see it as an outsider.. someone says this is the boundary and once you cross it, you have gone over to the dark side, while some feel any question which is a legitimate question on the part of the querant ( legit question is another endless unanswerable question as i see it) and the 2 different positions will never meet in the middle..

people/astrologers get right and wrong answers with their predictions and questions all the time.. one can say the astrologer is lousy, or the techniques are wrong or the question is not acceptable, but it remains that one can do it either way and come up with right and wrong answers.. i suppose one has to believe in what they are doing and for that i think it takes a certain type of person that is not all that common.. better to have some crutches to fall back on like following the rules and guidelines of others who seem to know more.. i see that happening a lot..