Interesting about Goethe.... can you relate your insights to the OP topic?

Thanks for the comment, Waybread.
I am trying to relate "pray before reading" to its scientific analogy, "be open to inspiration while observing.". It didn't start out that way, but when I read an article about Francis Bacon, the author mentioned that Goethe had a different idea,that nature would not give up her secrets when treated in that manner.And Goethe said a lot that responded to my own concerns. so I began to study him. But definitely he belongs under "Philosophy and Science" and I thought it would confuse people if I broke off the first thread and started a new one.
His science was part of his life experience and total character, and his horoscope shows his genius. I think that today's scientists think being objective means keeping your feelings out of your observations, whereas Goethe thought they were part of your apparatus and were refined by your
contact with other people and understanding their points of view. He was also attuned to the social currents of his time. The point of view that society and the natural world, if they are different, reflect each other and can be understood in terms of each other, means that one can't be such a narrow specialist. I am glad to find out that some of them now are running for office and hope they are successful. I think just as a broad background is necessary for science, a scientific one can help a person in politics. Just look at Angela Merkel! And also, focusing on "nature" almost always brings revelations about oneself, which if a person resists them, block off further progress.
So I thought "pray before reading" came closest to what I was trying to say.

Thanks. The scientists I've known did try to keep their feeling out of the data, but they were passionate about their research in a general way. Otherwise why dedicate their careers to it?

Hello, Waybread!
I appreciate scientific work and admit scientists can be passionate about their work, but I wonder if it is a particular theory of the world rather than nature itself they are passinate about. And proving the world is a logical place. And they also may be unconsciously or consciously, using some of Goethe's methods.
Francis Bacon assumed the human mind to be the ultimate subject (i.e. observer, interpreter and actor.}
That was at odds with another, Medieval or earlier, concept of "The Great Chain of Being" which still belongs to collective psychology: God is to Man as Man is to Woman. as humanity is to living nature, as animals are to plants, as living nature is to non-living, and so on.
These parallel dichotomies are not one-way streets: woman observes man, and his attention helps to spur her creative drive, and, since "for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" she inspires his creativity as well. As with every human-to-human encounter, both sides are changed, neither is ever exactly the same again. For better or worse. Feelings are things, objects, and cannot be read out of the equation, however one might try, Which is why "The Sorrows of the Young Werther" was such a sensation.
The encounter of the human mind with nature is of the same sort. Leaving out emotion, assuming nature is purely mechanical, and limiting oneself to logic and the five official senses, from which, arguably, a Creator can be logically deduced. effectively puts Man at the pinnacle of creation; assuming as Bacon did, that all relationships are top down and no back talk, he must answer only to men of a higher rank than he.
But to add a sixth sense, i.e. esp, would be to admit that human desire could have an effect on the results of an experiment, so that it might not be reproducible, and so topple the whole edifice.
to be continued

I think you'd have to distinguish between the natural and physical or "hard" sciences. An exploration geologist or field ecologist is probably more driven by love of the great outdoors, whereas a theoretical physicist would have to love all of the number-crunching and the the purity of an abstraction.

It may help to think of scientists as a collection of highly talented and educated people, who work in an academic, government agency, or corporate setting. This makes them a lot like everybody else. Most of them fall in love, go out for a beer with the guys, raise children, love music, or do most of the things non-scientists do. Some are atheists, with a Richard Dawkins at the extreme end of that pole. Others are deeply religious.

For more on my thoughts about science, see my thread on this board re: why astrology is not a pseudo-science. In a nutshell, science today is absolutely the wrong comparison with astrology today.

Why do you pray before reading? Do you not have confidence or trust in your own ability as an astrologer?

To whom do you pray ? Whoever they are, surely they should help you without being asked and prayed to.

Why must they demand prayers? Most of us are brought up to help others without asking for any kind of supplication.

Human beings should get off their knees.

Please think about it. The future maturity of humanity is at stake.

Vicki, the title of my thread and OP refer to two related topics:

1. The strong advice of many traditional astrologers of the past that the astrologer seek spiritual guidance prior to attempting a reading. The deities to whom they prayed varied according to their faith.

2. Whether astrologers today think it is valuable to follow this advice in some fashion. For an atheist, this might be simply clearing her mind of distractions and getting into a quiet space of calm and focus.

"Pray before reading" is just my little twist on the instructions given to spies, that the message is to be burned after reading. Maybe you saw the film "Burn after reading."

I've described my position in my first few posts. Again, I don't take a rigidly sectarian view of God or religion. But I find it helpful to put myself in a frame of mind that includes humility, and a sense of service to the individual. The God to whom I pray briefly obviously doesn't need or demand my petition. I don't kneel. I'm unclear as to how your apparent assumptions about prayer would even factor in. The purpose is to put my mind in a space suitable for "getting under the hood" (or "bonnet" for UK readers) of another human being.

Waybread, what my intuition tells me about science is that its purpose is to bring about a harmony between the human race and the music of the cosmos, of Nature.
Quoting an article about German Romanticism (around the late 18th to early ninetieth centuries) on the website Froebel Web -- Tripod.
"Romanticism is the cult of the individual, the inner spark of divinity that links one human being to the larger Truth. In poetry, visual art. and music, artists strove to articulate the personal experience that becomes, in turn, a representative one.The artist assumes the status of a prophet and moral leader, a divinely inspired vehicle through which Nature and the common man find their voices
.......................................................................................
For the Romantic, Nature was, indeed, a constant companion and teacher. She became the stage on which the humann drama was played , the context in which man came to understand its place in the universe, the transforming agent which harmonized the individual soul with what the Transcendentalists would call the Over-Soul. Throughout all of the Romantic literature, music, and art, Nature is a dynamic Presence, a Character who speaks in the language of symbols at once mysterious and anthropomorphic, who engages man in a dialogue with the life=force itself."
This is the background of "Goethian Science" in the Wikipedia article.
The eighteenth century was an eventful one, beginning with a Uranus/Pluto conjunction at the end of Leo in 1710-11. In 1711 the Great Enlightenment began with Voltaire , the great lover of liberty who wwas put in the Bastille for his writings. He was followed a few years later by the Freemasons, Diderot, and the epistemologist David Hume, whose philosophy part empiricism and part "common sense" formed the basts of scientific endeavour.
Then the riposte-- "The Great Awakening", around 1730 to 1745 involving the individualized religious experience which swept the American colonies, England, and Germany,
Then came the Uranus-Pluto square in the 1750's, with the American and French Revolutions , then the Romantic Movement in the 1790s.
But what was even more remarkable was the conjunction of the two Plutoids. Haumea at 4 Sc 49 and Makemake at 4 Sc 10, in 1749, in Goethe's horoscope, Aug 28. The two conjoin his Vesta, the sacred flame which must never be allowed to go out. at 5 Sc 3. The conduction is rare because Haumes's orbital period is 285 years while Makemake's is 310. I discuss these both in my other thread "the Plutoid Sedna and the hear Future of US Corporations" in the Mundane Astrology section.
Some modern scientists are starting to use Goethe's methods (see the article " Goethe, Nature, and Phenomenology" by David Seamon. There are also now scientists who want to reach out in the other direction, and get themselves elected to public office, to stem the anti-science tide, forming a group called STEM the Divide, and that encourages me very much. And also
Goethian science fits right in with astrology.I'll later discuss Goethe's horoscope and its genius aspects.

This is a continuation, not a reply
Waybread et al, I don't want to leave a false impression; conjunctions beween Haumea and Makemake were fairly frequent in the 16 17 and 18 centuries as I found out when I began plotting them. Those are posted under Mundane Astrology and World Events. Sorry about that; I went by logic, not empirics.

,







,

Hello:

I would say that I'm one of those who prepares my mind in a more secular way - just clearing the mind, breathing deeply and trying to jettison any preconceptions. I'm speaking of horary here - I don't really find myself preparing in this way when I'm reading other charts - maybe I should consider it.

I try to prepare in a couple of other ways too by considering what the querent is asking and how I am going to approach the answer: ie: which houses will be relevant.

Forum member Aglaya speaks of the "question-shaping process" with the client (not that I've had any clients yet) and I think this is a useful way to look at it - getting the background to the question and making sure the question itself is well understood by the astrologer before it is asked (the chart is cast).

I find when I try to bring clarity to these three things: astrologer/question/answer then I feel more confident about my ability to read what the chart is presenting to me. Of course, there always seem to be charts that are obscure in some way and then I think it's time to go back to the querent and clarify some more.

Good ideas for us all. Thank you!

In this Internet age of the rise of the amateur astrologer, a lot of us don't have paying clients. I've read tons of charts for people, but have never accepted a penny.

But then, "you get what you pay for," eh?

Thought this might be interesting to add to this thread:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0