14
I can imagine the audience may have been laughing or crying or more likely head scratching. Is this output the cleverest 'astro' scam of the last 30yrs I wonder. Regardless it's pure post modernism..............

15
The justification and correctness of Frawley's explanation of the word "Christian" in the title of Lilly's book lies in its erudite obscurity, and with this in mind I quote from his talk:-

"So the popular game among traditional astrologers of beating each other on the head with weighty volumes is a foolish one. There are those who like to play ?My authority is older than yours?. Others prefer the variant ?My authority is more obscure than yours? ? if you can base the whole of your astrology on the work of someone whom nobody else has ever heard of, you?ve really got something!"

It seems Frawley can play the game as well as anyone!

However, the point I was making was that the word 'Christian' never appears again in the book, which means Lilly did not need to refer to it again or explain the title - everybody would have known why he put that word in the title. The reason was not erudite or obscure, it was common cultural currency at that time.

Geoffrey

Social integration of astrologers

16
Good afternoon,

Obviously, in most circumstances one fares socially 'better' with less probability of malefic Martian events, if one swims in the theological and political main currents of the society one lives in. "When in Rome do as the Romans".

Since religions, scientific paradigms and the like come and go like sand castles at high tides, there is no honour lost by preferring a rather non-abrasive life style in this regard. After a shift of religion by conquest, of which history is replete with examples, many including astrologers convert, more or less by 'free will', to the new dominant state religion, e. g. Julius Firmicus Maternus, a noble Roman citizen, to Christianity, fortunately for us after having written his outstanding compendium of (deterministic) Hellenistic astrology.

Elsewhere at Skyskript one can read a translation of an autobiographic book by a 20th century German astrologer who was forced to work astrologically for high SS officers.

More on topic, the astrological delineation of 'moral' behaviour in a moralistic way, heavily influenced by current social and theological assumptions, can easily lead to subjective judgemental opinions on natives. Patriarchal, patrilineal (inheritance chiefly via males) societies, to attempt to assure that children be correctly attributed to certain fathers, had little choice but to inflict heavy restrictions on sexual behaviour of females. DNA paternity tests are a rather recent technological development.

One might also call to mind that, judged by common moral criteria, some of the most offensive men in history never regretted or apologised for any of their acts and died natural deaths whilst in office and / or in high social esteem, for example Lucius Cornelius Sulla (see Maternus' book), Joseph Stalin and Francisco Franco.

In many societies, some of them matriarchal, some not, promiscuous courtesans of one or both sexes were held in high social and / or religious esteem, their company and services sought and remunerated by prominent citizens and by worshippers of e. g. the Goddess Aphrodite.

In my humble opinion astrologers and other advisers do well by clearly and lucidly reading and delineating the data, not by passing their own moral judgements on their clients or, worse, by abusing consultation with hidden agendas of religious missionary intent. This, however, does not exclude awareness of possible balance in the chart provided by philosophic or religious activities nor of prominence in these fields, should such be indicated.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

18
"
So the popular game among traditional astrologers of beating each other on the head with weighty volumes is a foolish one. There are those who like to play ?My authority is older than yours?. Others prefer the variant ?My authority is more obscure than yours? ? if you can base the whole of your astrology on the work of someone whom nobody else has ever heard of, you?ve really got something!"

It seems Frawley can play the game as well as anyone!
It isn't really a game. He's pointing out a game of one-upmanship (I've read more than you) or a spin on a propaganda technique or false logic: appeal to authority. Although admittedly this is a difficult one to avoid. A popular example is "Aristotle said the appeal to authority is the worst form of logic." Notice the appeal to Aristotle's authority.

The fact that this or that authority said this or that or the fact that one authority predates another is irrelevant. Is what they said true should be the criteria. Valens is not superior to that which came after him because he came first or early on. If in fact Valens' astrology is superior it is because of the truth of its internal structure, not because it is old.

On the other hand the moderns are equally wrong when they criticize traditional astrology on the grounds that it is "old" and out of date. Traditional astrology should stand or fall on its merits not its age. T

I recall many years ago on this Forum disagreeing with something or other and my exasperated opponent said, "But Bonatti said so!" He may have, and he may have had good reasons, but it takes more than that to make it true.

Still we're all entitled to our beliefs and opinions and we're not all going to agree on all of them.

19
Geoffrey wrote: However, the point I was making was that the word 'Christian' never appears again in the book, which means Lilly did not need to refer to it again or explain the title - everybody would have known why he put that word in the title. The reason was not erudite or obscure, it was common cultural currency at that time.

Geoffrey
Well I suppose one would need to know a fair bit about his demographic. Perhaps erroneously I understood it as a simple title, i.e he defined himself as a Christian and also believed idealist abstract models, although he may not have known much about Horoscopic roots, enabled him to know more about the future than he would have done otherwise. So on the face of it a coherent title, in his mind, for the book.

20
Kirk wrote: Yes, that is all obvious enough, don't you think?
You say so but if you look at comments here and elsewhere you do wonder. Young Paul is a notorious amoralist and one would assume if you entered his Horary space for a good time to go on a mission to kill a hundred 3yr old children in a 13 hr time period he would regard it as his duty to provide you the ''optimal' moment. He may not if reality appeared in his conceptual consciousness, or you would hope his senses appeared.

More seriously the idea astrolgers can't comment on moral issues is a nonsense since Horoscopy is a cultural or cognitive construct shaped and informed by all sorts of values. For example Jupiter is seen as a benefic and one of it's meanings is hope, i.e hope is a 'good' or something beneficial.

This gets me thinking about how the early Hellenists thought about sexual fidelity and monogamy and how this did, if it did, permeate into their Horoscopic semantics, anyone know ....?

I don't follow Lihin's train of thought, but we do know of cultures and subcultures where the concept of ''unfaithfulness'' does not exist as a person's sexuality is not owned or promised to another. So one would need to find out more as to the psychic context before imposing one's own morality into any guidance or advice. If someone said I'm finding it hard to trust the wife and the astrologer said I see promiscuity on her chart and the chap turns round and says so what it's an open marriage or somesuch then the astrologer ought to feel like a right numpty.

22
I don't follow Lihin's train of thought, but we do know of cultures and subcultures where the concept of ''unfaithfulness'' does not exist as a person's sexuality is not owned or promised to another.
But then it isn't cheating, is it? Put another way, if a man is in a polygamous relationship, he is not cheating on his other four wives when he sleeps with the 5th. Lilly, on the other hand is referring to monogamous relationships, so when the same guy above sleeps with another woman, he is cheating on his wife. That is not judgmental. It is a violation of an oath. In the polygamous relationship it is not a violation of an oath, so it is not cheating.

Lihin seems to be objecting to the fact that what is OK in A's worldview is not OK in B's. I don't follow that either. Regardless, when Lilly is describing adultery, he is not being intolerant of a particular worldview that he never experienced. He is discussing his astrology within the world that he lived. What is the problem with that?

23
Kirk wrote:
Young Paul is a notorious amoralist and one would assume if you entered his Horary space for a good time to go on a mission to kill a hundred 3yr old children in a 13 hr time period he would regard it as his duty to provide you the ''optimal' moment. He may not if reality appeared in his conceptual consciousness, or you would hope his senses appeared.

More seriously . . .
Not funny. Nor appropriate.
No arguments there. I would be quite happy with the stat that 90% of what I said before the age of 35 on reflection was bordering on idiocy, so we must be tolerant when we point out certain naivities amongst the younger or more cognitively compromised brethren herein. After all it is the 'belief' our mentalities are reflected in these Platonic models which brings us together here.

24
Tom wrote: But then it isn't cheating, is it? Put another way, if a man is in a polygamous relationship, he is not cheating on his other four wives when he sleeps with the 5th. Lilly, on the other hand is referring to monogamous relationships, so when the same guy above sleeps with another woman, he is cheating on his wife. That is not judgmental. It is a violation of an oath. In the polygamous relationship it is not a violation of an oath, so it is not cheating.

Lihin seems to be objecting to the fact that what is OK in A's worldview is not OK in B's. I don't follow that either. Regardless, when Lilly is describing adultery, he is not being intolerant of a particular worldview that he never experienced. He is discussing his astrology within the world that he lived. What is the problem with that?
I don't personally know much about Lilly's context, but assuming this is the case then obviously the above is coherent and sensible and he has the 'right' to comment on this matter in this way as it is being presented to him as a minus or a problem for one or more persons involved. Most of the time as far as I know monogamy has been a cultural reality, or at least it has been in recent centuries in most of the world. It may be going back 10's of thousands of years psychological dynamcis were very different in many places.

As I said before I don't quite follow Lihin's slant here. Clearly if you go and see an astrologer and you enter an environment shaped by them whether this is the wall colour, chair, selcetion of teas, reliance on the works of Lilly as opposed to Valens or Jones, etc .. you are already having a considerable amount of their 'morality' imposed upon you, so how Lihin is processing these realities I know not?

Anyway what interests me here is how monogamy was, or wasn't, built into the Horoscopic semantics early doors, ie. before Valens.