delete

Good morning,

Might some of the issues expressed in this thread concerning the exactness and application of more or less 'exact' astronomical phenomena contrasted to their 'simplified', 'symbolised' uses in astrology perhaps at least be mitigated by placing them in the context of 'essential' and 'accidental' as elucidated by Aristotle and others?

Here are three perhaps useful links for those not yet so familiar with this:

Aristotelian substance theory

Aristotle on Substance, Matter, and Form

Essential vs. Accidental Properties

Best regards,

lihin

varuna2 wrote: I am sorry to say that your arguments do not make sense to me.

When I look at contemporary society with its naive beliefs in progress, it looks insane to me. Same as when others look at my beliefs.

I"m sorry to hear that, if I can clarify any points I made I will. Let me know.

For what it's worth I do not think your beliefs look insane. I do think that you're being wilfully ignorant with regards the history of the zodiac etc. but that's okay. The reason for it is so as to fit within the paradigm of your religious outlook.

I do not buy into the notion that all views are equally valid, it sounds like something from the kaliyuga as well.

Perhaps equally valid was the wrong thing to say, but unless we can prove someone wrong or demonstrate a better argument we cannot simply ignore them. Juan's theories regarding astrology are valid within their own merits even if we disagree with them.

delete

varuna2 wrote:The rg veda quotes are certainly about the sky, that mention the 360 divided by 12 idea, even though the zodiac names themselves are not mentioned, I will not accept it any other way because I have seen the nature of the lies and the motivation that set up the substratum for Indology and in numerous other arenas of culture wars.

This may be true, but I think it's unlikely that Indian astrologers were using the zodiac in the same way that we do today. I'll bow to those more educated on the matter than myself, but my understanding is that this is not the case and that the greeks brought their horoscopy to India - that isn't to say there wasn't some native Indian astrology of course, just that it is not the same as what is practiced today. I think nearly very culture has some astro-culture.

And, yes, it is to fit the yuga teachings. But that is neither here nor there.

Well it sort of is, it tells us you are not basing your objections on science or on established history or fact, but on mythology/religion. That's fine, but it is worth noting.

I was being ironical with the Et tu Brute, since it is usually the other way around with us two.

Ha ha I don't know about that. We just take a difference of opinion at times. Nothing wrong with it. I like to think we'd both still respect one another all the same.

Try to create whatever your objections are to anything I have said in this thread in a concise way as possible, if you want to, and I will try to address the issues satisfactorily.

I guess I would simplify my objections as this:
We do not know for sure how astrology works though we can theorise. Suggesting electromagnetism is a fragile theory as, when tested, there appears to be no such astrological effect (at least not one that is obvious or measureable). It seems better to me then to simply observe that we recognise astrological effects and not come up with rationales for a causal force behind them when, for the most part, we are not well educated enough on those forces. What we are well educated on is astrology and so we should stick to it without coming up with physical causes behind it. There may well be one, but right now we don't know what it is. And that's okay. Astrology works whether we know how it does or not.

Another approach from the causal approach is synchronicity, and still another is what I understand Juan to be suggesting.

Because we don't know that any of these theories are correct (and I mean KNOW that they are correct rather than read from a scripture or appeal to an authority). So the only rational position we can take with astrology is agnosticism regarding how it works. Layered on top of that agnosticism we can take our most popular theory and work with it is a belief. So we have two levels, our knowledge and our theories, and when it comes to how astrology works our knowledge is limited, but we can still use our favourite theory, even if that theory is an appeal to authority or tradition, or some other theory.

I don't necessarily agree with all of Juan's statements, but I do think it's good to consider astrology in the light that he is encouraging. I tend to agree with you on some of the counter points you've made regarding the chart. A better analogy might be criticising business analysts for not working with real money but instead using graphs and spreadsheets - which are abstractions and reorganisations of data for the purposes of malleability and comparison. The chart, to me, is the same. I think Juan has oversimplified his point regarding the chart and the 'real sky' as a result - that's not to include his points about declination etc which are fair points. But which I'd also add are often considered - I suspect many advocates of primary directions would not be so agreeable on the idea that they don't account for latitude. As I write this there is an advert for Martin Gansten's primary direction course which explicitly details the difference between directing in mundo and zodiacally.

In any event the chart is purposely dealing with an abstraction just like any other analyst of data does - using particular abstractions of data through varying mediums (such as graphs, spreadsheets and pivot tables etc.). That's not to say he's wrong in his remark that astrologers make flawed remarks where it comes to astronomy based on these things of course, just that I think the comment is a little overstated.

Paul wrote:A better analogy might be criticising business analysts for not working with real money but instead using graphs and spreadsheets - which are abstractions and reorganisations of data for the purposes of malleability and comparison. The chart, to me, is the same. I think Juan has oversimplified his point regarding the chart and the 'real sky' as a result... just that I think the comment is a little overstated.

This is not what Im' saying by a long stretch, so let me try to clarify it, once more.

In the sky there are no intermediate houses, no 30 deg signs of the zodiac, no elements and qualities, no rulerships or dignities, no structured binary meanings like the 2nd is my money the 8th the money of others, no wives or bosses or brothers and sisters or parents. This kind of map is an oracle, it is not meant to represent the sky.

of course there are practitioners, primary directions, etc. that account for the latitude of the planets, but these are a minority and even in that case, the position used is still a unidimensional projection unto a plane, which astrologers call "the planet". The only technique I know that uses the real planets or stars in the sky is the paranatellontas, and this practice is very marginal.

using lunar parallax is even more marginal. This affetcs significantly the timing of ingresses and returns, the timing of new and full moons, the timing of primary directions of the moon. The difference in the timing of lunar celestial events when parallax is considered is often more than 1 hour, but this effect is disregarded buy the grat majority.

The error in the position of the Moon, reaching several degrees in most of the hundreds of extant ancient and medieval horoscopes, is another illustration of the same point.

The point is not that the chart is a simplification, it is that many astrologers believe that this simplified model enriched with many layers of imaginative "items" not found in the sky which are the basis of their work is what is actually happening in the sky. In many cases it isn't, or it is only sometimes. Why? Because it is not meant to be (let alone be used as) a chart of the sky.

finally, the stars and planets in the sky, whatever their influence is (I don't question this influence), is happening all the time on your physical, etheric, and astral bodies. This goes on continuously as an ongoing organic and spiritual process, but is completely ignored by Astrology. What Astrology does instead (in the case of transits) is refer the present positions to the chart of the instant of time when you were born, and assume that this is you. The real you today is ignored, and instead an indirect method is used in which the birth chart represents you today, even though the chart is actually a representation of something that happened a long time ago (birth). This can be possible only by way of metaphor, the relationship between you and the chart of the moment you were born is metaphorical, it can exist only in the imagination.

Bringin the idea of an unknown biological "imprint" at birth or the moment of the 1st breadth only evades the point adding another metaphorical layer. This play of metaphors is illustrated in the use of the pronoun "my". "Saturn in the sky right now is in square to my Mars". But this square is not happening in the sky right now ("there are no 2 jupiters in the sky"), it can happen only in the imagination.

The birth chart in Astrology --regardless of what we believe-- is USED as a model for the rest of your life, a tool to model the reality of the individual throughout all life and beyond, kind of a "forever" model of you, it is not and has never been used as a map of planetary or zodiacal influences at the moment of the first breadth.

Juan

Hi Juan,

The real you today is ignored, and instead an indirect method is used in which the birth chart represents you today, even though the chart is actually a representation of something that happened a long time ago (birth).

(emphasized by me)

Sorry to interrupt the ongoing discussion, what should be the best way to match or correlate the current transits with a chart which represents ME? Should we match current transits with a progressed chart? Just want to know if you have any suggestions.

Juan wrote: This is not what Im' saying by a long stretch, so let me try to clarify it, once more.

Ah perhaps I misunderstood or misread a point you had made, I had thought you made the analogy that transits do not represent anything astronomical - whilst I don't disagree with the conclusion that astrology is not a natural science I thought it a little vague to (as I understood it) make a criticism of astrologers who abstract their data. I've read this post and re-read the post where I felt that you were saying this and I can see where I may have made my misunderstanding.

However again you imply again here that astrologers are not using the 'real' coordinates of the planet, but again, I don't see why running a piece of data through a translation tool or a further abstraction is such a big deal that it need to be noteworthy - true astrologers often do not use declination but that's because the data is filtered in such a way so as to exclude it deliberately because they feel it is not always necessary. There are cases where they feel the data is necessary and they include it during those instances. For example it's not always necessary to know the depth of the oceans or the height of mountains if we just want to draw a map of a terrain - in this case we're excluding a z-axis of information. In other circumstances it may be more necessary, such as a topographic survey, and that information is included again. Of course this is all outside the argument of natural science - I'm not arguing against that - I'm just curious why it is so remarkable that astrologers do not use all axes of information at their disposal when so many other fields also do not? Yes, astrologers do not include a 'y axis' but what of it? Why is that relevant to anything? I don't understand.

Maybe you only made these points directly in relation to natural science etc. so okay fine, but otherwise I'm not really sure why it is worth focusing on. Sure we could do with including a better calibre of calculation etc of course.

Why? Because it is not meant to be (let alone be used as) a chart of the sky.

I think I agree with what you're saying, that the chart is not a diagram of the actual sky as seen from our location.

What Astrology does instead (in the case of transits) is refer the present positions to the chart of the instant of time when you were born, and assume that this is you. The real you today is ignored, and instead an indirect method is used in which the birth chart represents you today, even though the chart is actually a representation of something that happened a long time ago (birth). This can be possible only by way of metaphor, the relationship between you and the chart of the moment you were born is metaphorical, it can exist only in the imagination.

Actually I think what happens here is that fluctuating data is juxtaposed against static data for the purposes of comparison. I do not think astrologers look at the chart, any chart, and think "this is you", instead they think "this represents you or part of you in some way". Transits are the same. To keep an analogy, the business analyst will compare fluctuating profit margins against a static set of data, perhaps last year's quarter, and imply certain meanings from this fluctuation as it compares to that static data. Astrologers do the same, the compare fluctuating data (changing planets) against static data (natal chart) and suggest it implies something.

But this square is not happening in the sky right now (there are no 2 jupiters in the sky), it can happen only in the imagination.

But astrologers do not think it happens here and now with two jupiters, any more than business analysts think there are two '3rd quarters' in a year. In this case a square can be seen as a particular relationship between Data 1 and Data 2 - but why is this worth noting? A similar analogy may be that we go 'in the red' compared to last year - but there's no money out there that's actually red and we don't have two third quarters either. All we're doing is comparing and making note of what kind of comparison comes out of it and doing something or implying something as a result. If I compare Data 1 against Data 2 and Data 2 is in an adverse relationship to Data 1 (for example by being less than it) then we imply something - the company is not making as much profit. We do similar things with the relationship between Data 1 and Data 2 in astrology.

The birth chart in Astrology --regardless of what we believe-- is USED as a model, a tool to model the reality of the individual throughout all life and beyond, kind of a "forever" model of you, it is not and has never been used as a map of planetary or zodiacal influences at the moment of the first breadth.

Just for clarity, I don't disagree with any of this - astrology is a tool to model a variety of things, our own lives included.

Horatio wrote:Sorry to interrupt the ongoing discussion, what should be the best way to match or correlate the current transits with a chart which represents ME? Should we match current transits with a progressed chart? Just want to know if you have any suggestions.

I think it is fine the way it is normally done (I personally never do trasits to a progression). The point is not that there is anything wrong with the way it is done, that's just the way Astrology works. The point is that the actual influence on your physical organism (your brain, your blood) is ignored by Astrology. We cannot chart what is unknown to us. Instead, we chart the interaction with a symbolical you (the birth chart) which represents you because of a cultural convention, a metaphor. No "celestial influence" is involved here, what we are charting is some specific conditions of your life at some specific moment of time, by means of celestial coordinates, but these coordinates --because of the way astrologers use them-- cannot represent celestial "influence".

Juan

Hi Juan,

I have read this thread with a lot of interest. I agree with your point of view.

.

Paul wrote:I'm just curious why it is so remarkable that astrologers do not use all axes of information at their disposal when so many other fields also do not? Yes, astrologers do not include a 'y axis' but what of it? Why is that relevant to anything? I don't understand.

the relevance is in terms of what many astrologers believe. Astrology is essentially the manipulation and interpretion of analogically manipulated celestial coordinates in the context of human affairs. But when you interpret a Moon/Venus exact (partile) zodiacal conjunction by longitude in the 7th house, and, looking at the sky find out that the exact longitudinal conjunction happened 1-1/2 hours later in the 8th house, and their mutual distance was not 0 degrees as in the chart but 12 or 15 degrees, then you are not working with what is happening in the sky, but with is happening in the chart. The relationship with the sky becomes tenuous, indirect. Nothing wrong with that except believing that you are working directly with an event observable in the sky. In the sky there was no such event, like there are no transits, no progressions, directions, and so on.

I don't have time now for a full reply. In the threads I linked you can read how some other contributors explain it (it seems to me you haven't read #5304, I suggest you do). I would like to quote some of them briefly here:

Kenneth Irving, former editor of American Astrology:

"The meaning in a birth chart is really a set of mathematical and philosophical constructs mentally overlaid on a diagram that is a bare outline of what one might actually experience if watching, and experiencing, the changing panorama of the sky"

Ren? (3D) writes:

"I think we can put it in other words: the physical reality of the heaven is not reflected in a conventional ecliptic-projection based chart. It?s as simple as that.
Once we have recognised that, we can choose what the basis of our delineation is. If we accept that projections on a plane ? ecliptic, horizon, meridian, equator, prime vertical, or time based or spherical mundane relationships ? are effective, meaningful points, and we also accept geometrical relations (?aspects?) between them, then we already have a great choice of astrological techniques.
Intersections of planes, if accepted as effective points, give you the ASC, MC and the Nodes.
... We just have to be aware of what we are doing and why.

Marc Edmund Jones explains it this way (emphasis mine):

"What does not have general understanding however is the inescapable circumstance that as astrological techniques gain their effectiveness in an advanced refinement or specialization of meaning through the various forms of remove in relationship they depart increasingly from the foundational or literal realities of celestial mechanics. This shift to more and more symbolical designation is represented most familiarly from the very beginning by the distinctive specificities with which the significators are endowed when placed in a geocentric structure. The process continues as symbols are established in layer upon layer of particular and varying but logically ordered context, and while horoscopy in its illimitable range of analytical judgement is thus ever making use of the heavenly phenomena it actually comes to employ them only most incidentally in their original and material or least symbolical base.

my own summary back then:

"An astrological chart is made of superimposing semantic and classification structures modelled after the geometry of celestial mechanics, but these structures (signs, planets, houses...) are a reflection not of the heavens but of the analytic structure of the human mind. The standard astrological chart is designed not to represent the heavens but to be used as an analytical tool, and therefore it does not refer back to the heavens but to human experience and the human mind."

Juan

Juan wrote: the relevance is in terms of what many astrologers believe.

Okay, if it's just a matter of correcting what flawed assumptions astrologers may have regarding their astronomy, then so be it. I don't have an issue with that. I was thinking more that you were criticising astrologers (generally, perhaps even yourself included) for not taking into account things like declination or suggesting that as a result of not doing so that we're not dealing with an astronomical reality - we still are, it's just that the data we work with is 'filtered' so as to only work with longitude (for whatever reason). The conjunction still happens 'in the sky' it's just that it only happens when projected onto one plane. What we work with is the manipulated data rather than the raw data - but then there's nothing noteworthy or unique about this to astrology. Of course if astrologers think a conjunction zodiacally infers a two planets occupying the same spot in the sky then yes, you're right to clarify.