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

hopeless evidence??
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin wrote:
Quote:
Anyway, here is a thought experiment.

Does astrology work when no one is looking?

If a tree falls in the forest and diverts a stream, or an earthquake causes a landslide - but no one is around to see it or experience the consequences, would there be some kind of transit/progression etc for it.

Is astrology a product of consciousness or is it something "out there" irrespective of consciousness?


To anyone who knows their dignities from their debilities, that’s the issue in a nutshell! It’s why I always refer this debate back to the traditional differentiation between ‘natural’ and ‘judicial’ astrology. ‘Natural’ astrology is supposed to operate regardless of individual perspective, like a full Moon effect – so that tree falls. Judicial astrology requires the symbolic judgement of an astrologer. It cannot be expected to operate without someone paying attention; hence that tree doesn’t fall.
Trying to bracket natural and judicial astrology together is futile, but establishing where one begins and the other ends is near on impossible.

Many historical astrologers have tried to prove the 'natural' principles of astrology whilst claiming that the judicial branches were defective. But what they thought of as being ‘natural, scientific principles’ were heavily dependent upon symbolic assessment – like the signs of the zodiac and the essential dignities, each of which can vary according to various systems - so obviously more likely to fall into the judicial camp. It’s amusing when you find authors like William Ramesey publishing huge books on electional astrology, whilst indignantly claiming that horary astrology is pure rubbish! What's natural and what's judicial? That's the rub Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Malcolm Ramsay



Joined: 13 Apr 2008
Posts: 73
Location: Lincoln, England

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin's post reminded me of a limerick on this theme, by someone called Ronald Knox, published in 1924:
Quote:
There once was a man who said "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad


A reply was received:
Quote:
Dear Sir,
Your astonishment's odd:
I am always about in the Quad
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
God

As a lapsed atheist I'm a bit embarrassed how often I've used the word 'god' on this forum, but ... can there ever be no one around to see the tree fall?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Lewicki



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 46

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
Martin wrote:
Quote:
Anyway, here is a thought experiment.

Does astrology work when no one is looking?

If a tree falls in the forest and diverts a stream, or an earthquake causes a landslide - but no one is around to see it or experience the consequences, would there be some kind of transit/progression etc for it.

Is astrology a product of consciousness or is it something "out there" irrespective of consciousness?


To anyone who knows their dignities from their debilities, that’s the issue in a nutshell! It’s why I always refer this debate back to the traditional differentiation between ‘natural’ and ‘judicial’ astrology. ‘Natural’ astrology is supposed to operate regardless of individual perspective, like a full Moon effect – so that tree falls. Judicial astrology requires the symbolic judgement of an astrologer. It cannot be expected to operate without someone paying attention; hence that tree doesn’t fall.
Trying to bracket natural and judicial astrology together is futile, but establishing where one begins and the other ends is near on impossible.

Many historical astrologers have tried to prove the 'natural' principles of astrology whilst claiming that the judicial branches were defective. But what they thought of as being ‘natural, scientific principles’ were heavily dependent upon symbolic assessment – like the signs of the zodiac and the essential dignities, each of which can vary according to various systems - so obviously more likely to fall into the judicial camp. It’s amusing when you find authors like William Ramesey publishing huge books on electional astrology, whilst indignantly claiming that horary astrology is pure rubbish! What's natural and what's judicial? That's the rub Smile


Natural astrology seems more like another name geocosmic effects. I imagine judicial astrology might have emerge from some observations geocosmic effects.

Otherwise horoscopic or judicial astrology in my view has the signature of a product of consciousness. That is, it did not exist out there until it was brought into being by a contemplating consciousness. That is astrology exists because we created it! No wonder there are so many variegated systems - some even contradictory.

So if a natural event coincided with an astrological configuration, it does so because there is a consciousness there to witness it, otherwise there would be no need for there to be a configuration for the event.

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
James Frazier



Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 54
Location: USA

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I am back after my glorious trip to England. I really must find a way to get to the UK more often, it is where my soul compass points. We missed seeing you there Deb!

Thanks to the generosity of Rudolf Smit, I now have a copy of the correlation article that Dean points out as his reference for the above mention claims that I am challenging. I will go over this with a fine tooth comb to see if I am correct in my own claims…… So far, I think my astrolabe is still safe. Thumbs up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

 
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