skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Post-Modernist Astro-labe

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
skippy



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 88
Location: england

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:45 pm    Post subject: Post-Modernist Astro-labe Reply with quote

Following on from Hand's paper and some of the comments Coder makes in the news thread on the same:-

Quote:
In doing so he would appear to be far more post-modern than he himself realizes


I felt Rob to be arguing just that whether he realises it or not I don't know but it would be typical of Robert he is the hippy generation and the paper says to me lets unite astrology and stop sqabbling about which is superior to the other. Allow people to continue developing and let us formulate it for prosterity without bypassing it's broad and rich tapestry from history. He does adjunct it with if it is provable which still takes it along a rational line rather than a post-modern line.

Astrology DID go through a 'Modernist' era whereby it attempted to construct astrology as a philosophy into rational cogent arguments through the paradigm of the unconscious/id. It attempted to align itself with rational scientific thinking. Gauquelin et al. It attempted to align itself with the meta model of the mind. I'm not mentioning any names here. All stuff originating from Buddhist philosopy. I find laughable the serious attempts to label it science.

Like it or not astrology has become eclectic without a unifying purpose or philosophical construct and yes there are those that are almost fundamentalist in their zeal for locating it in history and religiousity. The latest scientific developments are uneasy bedfellows any attempts to explore that would put it on a par with, Grand Daddy, Wittgenstein than the arguments of Foucault (or 'eff off', as I liked to refer to him) Derrida or Baudrillard. There is no cohesive foundation to render it a universal truth and to try to locate it in one is meaningless. Though which came first the chicken or the egg. Did astrology influence Wittgenstein or did Wittgenstein influence astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skippy



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 88
Location: england

Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That sort of honesty and humility is just too rare to be unappreciated, it also opens the door for anyone to feel free to agree or disagree with whatever he says, and there is so much in this article that we haven't touched.

Tom


Ok Tom a thread devoted to the philosophical argument Rob Hand raises in his paper. Lets be having it then.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated