Skyscript Astrology Forum

Translation from Italian version. The French version in La mission socratique de l'astrologie R?flexions sur l?astrologie, L'astrologue, no.56 1981

Andr? Barbault (1981): It's not a surprise that astrology is polarized around two different threads. One side is divinatory astrology, as we received from the past, mixed to the other occult sciences, fed by the Astonishing ( with the horary which is the most important branch ) and whose approach is not different from tarot or coffe readings, and math or logarithms don't make it different. In this case astrology is a mantic as others, with Jupiter having the same place than the King of Hearts or Diamonds of the fortune teller. I believe this practice as a underdevelopped by-product of our Art, of which it represents the "wild" side with its modus operandi resulting in a world of pseudo or false correlations.

On the other side, trying to be different from the above procedure, we have the psychological astrology... the chart is a representation of the human micro and macrocosm, ie the inner world of the human being, with the "subject" becoming the object of the knowledge. In this way it becomes psychology and the astrologer becomes a psychologer opening the royal road to the human knowledge.

Thanks Margherita,

With all due respect to Andr? Barbault I dont think these two approaches are necessarily as polarised as he suggests. For example, in a Neo-Platonist astrologer like Marsilio Ficino we see a combination of what may be described as the magical and psychological approach. I also notice the psychological astrologer Liz Greene has recently written on divinatory astrology.

I think the real philosophical divide has been and remains what might be simplified as the Platonic vs Aristotelian streams in astrology. The former stream emphasizes causality and empiricism while the latter outlook sees astrological symbols in less literalist or causal ways. In the past astrologers could probably ignore the issue and hold both views simultaneously. However, in an era where astrology has failed to find empirical validation through the scientific method this division amongst astrologers is more evident than ever.

Mark

Shouldn't that be the other way around, Mark? The "Platonic vs Aristotelian" thing?

I'd add: Honestly the only mistake here is that he thinks psychological anything is any different than tarot reading. Both are very mantic, as is most astrological practice. But that's the problem, isn't it? Mantike is not logika...

GR wrote:

Shouldn't that be the other way around, Mark? The "Platonic vs Aristotelian" thing?

I think I know what you are getting at Gabe but perhaps you could elaborate your point for the benefit of forum readers?

GR wrote:

I'd add: Honestly the only mistake here is that he thinks psychological anything is any different than tarot reading. Both are very mantic, as is most astrological practice. But that's the problem, isn't it? Mantike is not logika...

I dont think the ancients necessarily saw this conflict you seem to be implying between logic and divination.

Mark

Mark wrote:GR wrote:

Shouldn't that be the other way around, Mark? The "Platonic vs Aristotelian" thing?

I think I know what you are getting at Gabe but perhaps you could elaborate your point for the benefit of forum readers?

That the Platonic is the "less literal" way and the Aristotelian is the "empirical" one. Honestly not sure this is a apt comparison, as what people think of today as empiricism is a very boiled down, I'd probably say boiled down to the pan, take on Aristotelian causality.

GR wrote:

I'd add: Honestly the only mistake here is that he thinks psychological anything is any different than tarot reading. Both are very mantic, as is most astrological practice. But that's the problem, isn't it? Mantike is not logike...

I dont think the ancients necessarily saw this conflict you seem to be implying between logic and divination.
[/quote]

Not logic simply, but something that is done in a knowledgeable way, like say, geometry. I probably should have used techne instead of logike.
Though, mantike is a form of madness, which logike is not. A reading of Plato's dialogue Ion might be of use.

Divination comes from the divine, however one frames that being immaterial IMO. It doesn't come from knowledge possessed by an individual, rather the individual is them self possessed by an inspiration. Any ritualistic method to arrive at that inspiration is merely a gesticulation, whether it be prayers, tarot cards, or William Lilly; it's a gift from the god, as it were. If we say that astrology is divination period, what we are saying is that the "rules" aren't simply arbitrary, but effectively without meaning or power of action or description. And there is my problem, in that anything that is an "-ology" as it is, an episteme, a science in the older sense of the word, is capable of either causing or describing something effectively. So astrology as divination isn't astrology at all, but astromancia. Maybe people will take it as some sort of word game, but I don't think it is. Words have power all their own.

I agree that an empirical astrology is also ridiculous, enough that I won't spend any time on that subject. My take on it is more akin to arithmetic, or better, grammar, where after the acceptance of arbitrary principals, logical elaborations come forth.

Gr wrote:

That the Platonic is the "less literal" way and the Aristotelian is the "empirical" one.

oops yes of course! That was a silly error. Thanks.

GR wrote:

Honestly not sure this is a apt comparison, as what people think of today as empiricism is a very boiled down, I'd probably say boiled down to the pan, take on Aristotelian causality.

I intend to open a thread on this whole topic on the philosophy forum soon so I prefer to keep my powder dry for now....

I have no time at present to respond properly on what you say about divination. Its an interesting issue. I will get back to you on that.

Mark

It's fine, Mark, I'm in no hurry to vent on it! I'm curious what others would say, I do feel quite isolated in my position on this subject.

Mark wrote:
I intend to open a thread on this whole topic on the philosophy forum soon so I prefer to keep my powder dry for now....

Mark

we look forward to reading you. I would say something about your reply but I will wait for your thread

margherita

hi gabe,

i liked what you had to say about what is essentially a conflict if one limits astrology to being just divination.. i think it is more then divination, but if one wants to see it in only scientific terms, or even logical terms, i think it is very complex and difficult to convince others of the deep logic to it. we can't do this in any traditional manner by saying this means this given all the moving variables.

i look forward to mark starting up a thread in the philosophy section on this.
thanks for this conversation everyone.

GR wrote:It's fine, Mark, I'm in no hurry to vent on it! I'm curious what others would say, I do feel quite isolated in my position on this subject.