Olivia wrote:Sadly, I'm serious about that. Even science ain't often what it's cracked up to be.

I know Science is a huge corporate operation with all the ego-related issues on top of it. But I was not writing about the paradigm, but about the method, basically of being as unbiased as possible, taking things critically (again, I am more than aware of how much fluff there is in professional science, but it does not say much about the method). When I first found this forum I was (and still am) impressed that most people here question things and don?t take them for granted. I confess, just a couple of years ago I thought people doing all this esoteric stuff are, well, with their heads somewhere in clouds. Well, I was wrong And that's great, because that's how something can be developed, understood, etc.
Coming back to the original discussion: Tom made a point that the transits by themselves are not necessarily sufficient. And for me, empirically, this is a fact. For you, apparently, they are sufficient, at least in some cases. The question is then, what are the other factors in a chart that, say, I do or do not have to make me insensitive? I mean, if you don?t know it, how sure could you be when you tell somebody they will have this and that based on some transit?

I started with Jung, he does make at least some sense, he has a theory, whatever it is worth. But when I started looking deeper into all this psychological astrology, it is just too vague for me, not enough even to convince myself that it is not just some coincidence. You read about Plutonian types, Neptunian types. Gee, I am all of them! And so are millions and millions of people. If the author did not realize it, I have serious doubts he has anything useful to say, if he had an agenda to sell books, then I don?t trust him either.
Then I read a few articles by Robert Hand and here I am and I like the classical techniques a lot. At least they are testable . Still, I am not sure that all is so determined. Take John Frawley?s take on Hitler. OK, the pure evil, sure. But there should be about 10 people with about the same chart (an estimate from birth rate data for that year), where are these other ?Hitlers?? Also, he?s not the only one who did evil things, millions of Germans then made all the atrocities possible and took part in them, was that in their charts? I doubt it. That?s something I am still struggling with.

Critical thinking is extremely important, both for science and astrology. You ask who would pay for it? One of the things that got me impressed in classical astrology was when I tried to do temperament analysis for a few people I know very well. I know, statistics are poor, but still, if this is not impressive what else is. Science with all its neuroscience is nowhere close to be able to do it. So suppose some people in corporate HR get convinced it works, I am sure the money will start flowing. But do you want that? It?s just plain scary. Especially if you take into account all the mistakes people can make and that the terms we are operating with are not so well defined at all. I am reading Valens now and what struck me is that in the examples he talks about ?notable? people. Who were they? What is notable? Is it better to be lucky, smart, or whatever, to get rich and be ?notable? for a few years, or live a quiet life? So I do hope that those who practice astrology take it really seriously and critically, especially those who work with clients. Because this is, I think, subtler, but deeper than medicine.
Cheers

If I gave the impression that transits alone were enough - I didn't mean to! I simply pointed out that because of beholding signs, reception, partile aspect, and partile antiscial conjunction - I personally experience the dramatic Pluto transits full-on. And there's usually something else going on - if you see a theme repeatedly that's when it's most likely to show up, not a one-off of something like 'you'll have a violent death'.

Now, if you don't have a partile - in my case within a minute of arc - Sun-Pluto square with reception, and if they're not conjunct within a minute of arc by antiscia and not sensitively placed in your chart - you're unlikely to experience them the way I do! At least I hope you won't.

As I said, Neptune by modern standards is much more prominent in my chart, but I'm sitting here as it's conjunct my Mars, squaring my Moon/Algol conjunction, and opposing Pluto - has been for a couple months.

Nada. Of course Saturn is currently sitting on my IC/Venus conjunction squaring my Ascendant, and Uranus is opposite. Are people dropping out of my life like flies? Ooh yeah. But if you look at my SR for this year, it makes sense that that would be a sensitive transit.

It really, really depends on the chart.

And I agree, critical thinking is vital, especially if you're involved in an esoteric discipline.

And no, I don't want to see personnel departments (human resources - gotta love the way that reduces us all to nothing but cash assets, though yes, it's what they call it these days) start replacing wonky semi-enneagrams with astrology either.

I just don't understand why it seems so important to so many folks to scientifically 'prove' astrology. And yes, I know you can't prove it scientifically, but validate it.

Not something I believe to be possible, and in the world we live in now - not desirable, either. If astrology is truly a divine art, if it's there to help guide our lives and make us better people, I can think of few worse tragedies than putting it to use the way genetic testing and the like have been co-opted by some workplaces.

Thirding the post by Olivia. Being more on the corporate side of this issue, and seeing to the extant statistics can be malleable, it is a wonder anyone would trust them at all. Then having people on the astrological side, some who should know better and others who have a rather thin understanding of the subject (not that I?m bragging, I know full well that I have many a gap in statistical knowledge) spend a lot of time and effort on what they believe, or sell as they believe, are serious and concrete proofs of whatever particular technique or planet or whatever, but that would fold like a house of cards under any serious testing.

Seeing how this thread has gone into a how can we test astrology today it might be interesting to take this example from Greene?s talk abut the last 2,000yrs of western astrology. She uses Mars in the 8th , on Princess Diana?s chart, and discusses how ?definitions? need to be understood in relationship to the ??shifting cultural paradigms?? and psyches of the individual astrologers. (If any of these quotes are known to be inaccurate perhaps someone can comment on this). So I?m wondering how any of these can be tested ?scientifically??

?The 8th: death, benefits from fatality, lawsuits, weaknesses...When malefics alone are present [and Mars would be alone in the 8th with the Moon?s north Node, since Uranus and Pluto were unknown in Valens? time], then...the natives take upon themselves accusations of murder, or contrive something dangerous for themselves.? (VALENS 2CE)
??Alone in this [the 8th] house, he [Mars] predicts poverty, difficulties, fevers, riots, revolutions, dangers. But if the Moon is in the 2nd house from the Ascendant, this will make a violent death.?? (MATERNUS 4CE)
??getting killed or being devoured by animals??. (EZRA 12CE)
??If they [the malefics] are in the 8th, the kind of death is known from the evil significator...If Mars is in an earth sign, [he will be killed] by a fall or accident.?? (SCHOENER 15CE)
??Mars in the 8th house indicates a liability to a violent or sudden death.?? (LEO EARLY 20CE)
?Mars in the 8th: The marriage partner spends the substance of the native; strife concerning the property of deceased persons; danger of a violent death.? (SEPHARIAL EARLY 20CE)
??Sexual life is of importance. Interest in psychic matters...Surgery and psychology attract the mind.? (HONE MID 20CE)
??how a person can best and most realistically approach both the opportunities and the restrictions involved in bringing the relationships he enters to a fruitful state...Through this relationship, the individual will experience a valuable self-transformation and be able to reach depths of awareness and experience which he could never have attained alone.??(RUDHYAR MID/LATE 20CE)
??The Scorpio Dylan Thomas wrote, ?Do not go gentle into that good night.? In deaths and transformations of a physical or psychological nature, Mars in the 8th will usually follow that advice.?? (SASPORTAS LATE 20CE)

trevor wrote:She uses Mars in the 8th , on Princess Diana?s chart, and discusses how ?definitions? need to be understood in relationship to the ??shifting cultural paradigms?? and psyches of the individual astrologers. (If any of these quotes are known to be inaccurate perhaps someone can comment on this). So I?m wondering how any of these can be tested ?scientifically??

Trevor, I am not sure what exactly do you mean by testing ?scientifically?. What I see in the evolution of interpretations is that up to Schoener they are give-or-take consistent, but after that they become timid, if I can use the word, and then plainly meaningless. ?Sexual life is of importance?? Really, if it was only important for people with Mars in the 8th, I wonder how many of us would be around. Or take the Rudhyar quote: I understand it?s probably taken out of context, but it is typical him as far as I can tell. What does that passage mean? It could be applied anywhere, if it?s not tautology I don?t know what else is (I would be grateful if somebody could point out what I am missing). I don't know why this evolution (or devolution) went this way, whether it's only because of the dominance of the deterministic (materialistic, reductionistic, blah) worldview, such that it was the only way to "sell" it to the public, or that there were so many predictive failures or that these failures were a result of the loss of quality of the technique with time or the reason was banal ignorance. I can understand (sounds almost like ?forgive?) the relationship of interpretation to paradigms, but I do not really understand why one would muddle things up just to be with the mainstream. I find it intellectually dishonest.
And whether the effect of Mars in the 8th is ?scientifically? testable, I think it is, far from trivial, but not impossible. I am on optimist, I guess

Trevor, I am not sure what exactly do you mean by testing ?scientifically?. What I see in the evolution of interpretations is that up to Schoener they are give-or-take consistent, but after that they become timid, if I can use the word, and then plainly meaningless

Testing 'scientifically' is using the conventional norms as to how a hypothesis is currently assessed in academic circles.

Did you read all of Greene's talk? I'm not sure what you mean by meaningless or intellectual dishonesty?

Obviously those of Maternus, Ezra , Schoener can be tested easily today, assuming we take these words literally, and common sense suggests dismissed as inaccurate. We only need a few thousand coroners reports as to how people with Mars in the 8th died. Leo and Sepharial would perhaps also fall into this category. However for example, Ezra is saying this in the 12CE. So to be fair to him we would need a sample from this period and the place he found himself living in.

My interpretation of Rudhyar here is he is saying 'transformation' is more likely to come about through relationship(s) with others. This 'fits' with the way of beginning to see the 8th house (mid/late 20ce) as a place where the goal is the 'transformation of the ego through a relationship with another'.

It don't think it's to difficult to envisage a way of designing, albeit in a more sophisticted way, some kind of 'test' of Rudhyar here. However the results will be far more subjective and open to all sorts of challenges. It would need quite a few replications.

And if you read classical astrology, you'll see that you need to see something repeated at least 3 times before making a pronouncement. Ibn Ezra wrote I can't remember how many books on astrology (something like 20), and they build on each other.

I've only got one of Schoener's and it's nearly 300 pages and one of those WAY oversize books, so it'd be about twice that size as a large paperback. It isn't the only one, though.

Four volumes of Valens, and one of Maternus - have you checked these were the only 8th house references?

I wouldn't be surprised if they used the extreme example, but I would be kind of surprised if they didn't account for sect and other factors, at least somewhere in there. Shocked, actually. But it might not be under the same heading.

Even now, people tend to write about charts like Hitler or Ted Bundy or some other famous murderer to illustrate the extreme example of a badly placed Mars. They also did it back then - but there are also mitigating factors that I've never seen missing - how well-dignified is Mars, what's the rising sign, etc?

It's been a long time since I read Rudhyar or Liz Greene, but I'm fairly certain they had more to say about Mars in 8, too. Maybe not?

It isn't testable scientifically. You'd have to look at more than one variable to make a prediction, and you'd have to see the same prediction repeated at least twice more, and the ancients knew that.

And I reiterate my question: Why does anyone care whether astrology is verifiable under the current scientific paradigm?

Olivia,

We appear to be talking past each other a fair bit here.

The object of this exercise isn't to discuss Mars in the 8th house specifically. I'm not sure myself but ,I'd assume they would all have had all sorts of things to say and not used these exact words in some/all? cases. Greene, dosen't provide her take on it I think you meant Sasportas?

You could use other examples that are more long-winded and complex but you'd still have the same issue as to how do we know any have any veracity?

Greene agrees with you it seems in seeing attempts to prove it as pointless. However she has said in the past that these efforts may be useful they just aren't things she is temperamentally suited to involve herself in.

You don't think the 'human condition' would be improved if predictive astrology was used more widely (apologies if i've got the wrong impression,i'm sensing you are persuaded astrology can predict more concrete events).

I don't believe that scientific proof of astrology would improve the human condition. I also don't think we can do it, for which I am eternally grateful. Like Gabe, I see far too many possible abuses were that to come to pass, most of them of the 'ten minute temperament and health check' variety. The least work - and to actual human beings, not corporations or governments - the least benefit. With plenty of room for error.

There are good astrologers and other good diviners around if people want to go to them; just like there are synagogues and mosques and churches - heck, in most countries it's perfectly legal to start your own religion. I believe at this point religion has been scientifically validated to help folks because being part of a community of common interest helps you to live longer. Fortunately, religion isn't compulsory in most of the world. For which I am also grateful.

Psychotherapy very rapidly became an accepted part of society because it serves our current ideological norms, not because there's proof that it works - there's equal proof, some might argue more persuasive - that it doesn't.

How do you see some kind of scientifically valid astrology being put to good use in our society? Who'd be approved to teach it, which parts of astrology would be considered verifiable enough to teach, which parts would end up forbidden, what would be the certification process to become a practising astrologer, what would be the standards of best practise, or any of that? And do remember that astrology isn't a science to begin with.

There was a huge scandal with the American Tarot Association a few years back when they got themselves messed up with a number of certifying organisations, though Americans are a little cert-happy anyway. At one point, if you joined, you had to sign a statement saying that tarot could in no way predict the future and everybody has free will.

This could be a real problem for some of us. Especially given that horary - pretty much purely predictive astrology - is most professional astrologers' stock-in-trade. As Steven so aptly pointed out in another thread, it takes a good 40 hours or more to properly study and delineate a natal chart without even getting into the progressions, transits, and returns (in other words, that's natal with no predictive, just the character analysis). This is why natal astrologers had very wealthy patrons in the past - you simply cannot make a living from classical natal - unless you happen to be employed by a royal family. Who's going to do that now, how are they going to do it, and is the government or some corporation going to be footing the bill? I don't like to think of government-sponsored astrologers, somehow.

And ultimately, I do not believe there is enough interest from the public at large to support this endeavour - and I'm fine with that. Most folks don't go to diviners, and that's their right. I'd rather hate to see it forced on people.

Sorry if I'm not making a lot of sense today, I'm fluey and tired. But those are a few of the problems that come first to mind.

Of course if 'proof' appeared this would raise all sorts of issues as to how astrology could be utilised effectively. If memory serves me correct Hand discussed some of these potentialities in his speech and took a not dissimilar view to yours and mine. It's a logistical and ethical minefield.

The last research I saw into the effectiveness of psychotherapy was it is effective but no more than other interventions. The conclusions often seem to be that it's the therapist not the technique.

If you see astrology as a form divination then it's not surprising your motivations lie elsewhere. I don't remember that ''astrology isn't a science to begin with'' as it's not clear to me that any of us really know what astrology is. I pointed out earlier on in this thread that Hand, who is a bright star, felt that his Study into the deeper meaning of the Emerald Tablet suggested to him that astrology was about events in consciousness not nature. No one here has commented on this to date and this doesn't surprise me.

I previously stated why I thought a reputable astrology could help the human condition more so than it currently does, if it does, when I mentioned Jung's use of it. I?m not sure I can expand on this other than blabbering on about how a school astrologer might have supported my request to go to another school where the subjects caught my imagination. Would I have been better of studying at this period rather than playing truant, taking Lsd and discovering music who knows?

I?m not sure religion per se is good for health. I recall some ideas that those who felt life had some kind of ?meaning? were more likely to survive the Nazi Concentration camps.

40hrs preparation is a lot. Can you point me to a classical text where a delineation has been written after this amount of effort?

Trevor, no, I have not read Green?s talk. I could try it, if you give a link to it. I was using the citations from your post, which (again) I understand could be out of context, but the citations you had seem to me very representative, at least based on what I have read in that field.
For something to be testable, it needs, first of all, to be definable. Again, let?s forget for a moment about all the fancy definitions a la Popper, because that?s not how the contemporary science works and it was not and is not a part of top scientific or engineering graduate school curricula. Just take archeology, history, etc. It?s not physics, but it is called a science for a reason, because people there are (supposed to be, as anywhere else) very critical of themselves and their colleagues, and are consistent in application and development of their methods. But according to Popper it would not be a science, because, to begin with, it is not reproducible. Or take astrophysics, Popper and the like are nowhere near to be applicable, because, again, the system is not reproducible. Still it is a pretty hard science. The ?hardness? depends on how constrictive your definitions and measurements are.
Now, take the antique predictions ? yes, they are straight, bold claims and thus are testable and useful. They can fail easily because of that, but that is not a problem. It is, actually, a good thing, because even if something fails (which they not always do) you can learn from it. Like, ?stick your hand in a fire, it will not hurt?. BTW, it will not, if you have CIPA. But if you constrain it further like ?your hand is going to be all right after it?, it will fail at a rate extremely close to 100%. So, don?t do it if you still want your hands. Useful.
Now take the late 20th century examples you cite ? they mean practically nothing. You can not test them for that simple reason. Suppose that passage from Rudhyar meant what you say it means. My point is it is practically non-restrictive, because he does not provide any, even slightly restrictive, guidelines to his definitions. I think Tom touched upon it. What does the author mean by a transformative experience? Humans are social beings, all of them (except those raised by wolfs) do have interactions with each other. Given a relatively small fraction of people having 8th house Mars, does the author imply that the vast majority of human interactions is non-transformative for the ego? Even if you take Jung, ego has all those development stages, would the author say that people with the given natal condition are more likely to develop it via interactions with others, while the others not? Why the author does not make such a claim, even if it implied by his theory? Etc.
In more simple words: Suppose I had mars in 8th. Should I set a goal, as you say, to transform my ego through a relationship? Just because somebody said so? Suppose, I am gullible and do set this goal. How would I know I succeeded? This is the contemporary scientific approach and it has always been like that, it?s not 100 years old, it?s way older. Theory is just a theory, a tool to go about with. I am not going to follow Randy and Co and say that if there is no explanation ? ban it. After all, whatever makes people happy is none of my business. Human entertainment is a completely different beast, but if we want to make some sense out of a theory, develop it, understand what is going on, etc., that theory needs to be testable.
I do not think it is plausible that all the information is written in a chart. The combinations, even using classical approach, are not that great to explain / predict everything for such a complex phenomena as human life. There?s bound to be a lot of chance factors involved too. Chance, of course, is such a nice word, especially for skeptics. But hey, hard science works with correlations of 0.1 and nobody there has a problem with it, if you can show that something explaining these 10% of variation is statistically significant. There are many science fields operating with this kind of weak correlations. And there is multivariate analysis, and blah, but that is not a point here. Statistics is boring, but after all, if nobody here had a fair share of ?coincidences? between one technique or another and real life events or experiences, this forum would be empty. My point is to try to understand what is and is not, without fogging yourself into a happy bliss.
I do not know what Robert Hand means with his interpretation of emerald tablet, but from my sporadic reading I have an impression he is talking along the lines of ?everything is connected?, different plains, material being one of them, the plains interact. I am on such a thin ice here, so shoot me . Anyway, my understanding was that all these interactions also reflect on material plain, of course, and that?s what we observe. That?s your co-correlation, which is not causation and which does not have to be perfect because of that (not everybody with 8th mars is going to be eaten by wild animals, etc., but they might have strong behavioral tendencies to get into similar situations). And, if you understand the links better, you might find a better way to live your life. Though here comes the difficult part. I mean why one would have such a configuration? What?s the best way to deal with it? Is it actually ?better? for such a person to be eaten by a bear or should he do his best to avoid it and die in a car crash instead? (false dichotomy, but if all is determined ? not that much). Who knows, who knows? I am still not sure how to deal with all this, because it gets into the question of value judgments. Should everybody become a stoic? ? Any ideas in that direction?
In the context of this thread, my point is, again, I do not deny that astrological configurations may affect non-material events, such as moods, etc, but that the techniques provided by the modern astrology are, in my humble, of not much use for any reasonably serious study. Again, I am a dunce, so I may miss something, but I try to do my best in judging what is what.
Sorry for a long post. I will shut up and listen now

Trevor, no, I have not read Green?s talk. I could try it, if you give a link to it

Here it is again - http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_lifeview_e.htm

Now take the late 20th century examples you cite ? they mean practically nothing

not everybody with 8th mars is going to be eaten by wild animals, etc., but they might have strong behavioural tendencies to get into similar situations).

Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

??The Scorpio Dylan Thomas wrote, ?Do not go gentle into that good night.? In deaths and transformations of a physical or psychological nature, Mars in the 8th will usually follow that advice

What does the author mean by a transformative experience?

I'm not the best equipped to discuss Rudhyar's theosophical humanistic blend however I do have his Astrological Houses book and had a look at what he said about the 8th.

He sees it as related to autumn where vegetation dies, in temperate climates, but in this process some seeds don?t. I?ll quote ??to identify one?s consciousness with the seed process is for the individual to rise above cyclic death, and perhaps to experience if not a transforming mutation or fundamental repolarization, at least to participate in the eventual rebirth of vegetation in springtime?.

He also finds the number 8 significant. 888 being the symbolic number of Christ in the Gnostic tradition. The Christ myth is centred around the resurrection and crucifixion.

(Bear in mind Pluto?s keyword being? transformation? and in 1972 the convention of Pluto as co-ruling Scorpio/8th house was well established).

So if you can penetrate through Rudhyar?s verbose, and in my view fluffy, prose and gravitate towards his perspective then his Mars in the 8th delineation might have a lot of ?meaning?.

Should I set a goal, as you say, to transform my ego through a relationship?

Here?s what Liz Greene says, so perhaps you can tell me?

?Rather than define this house as ?death? or ?sexuality?. I am more inclined to see it as the interface where the integrated conscious personality, having developed solidity and adaptation through eh first seven houses, encounters that invisible domain which it cannot control, and where the individual is subjected to experiences which change the fundamental attitude toward life because of the loss of the ego?s power. In death, as in orgasm, we are not in control any longer and the same may be said of both family complexes (which form before we been come into existence) and ?joint resources? where we must pool our energy and substance with that of others?.

Co-incidentally she also mentions Diana?s Mars ((in Virgo (peregrine?), sextiles Mercury , conjuncts Pluto and Uranus, squares Venus and opposes the Moon. So it?s a ?weak?, compromised, complex, volatile and submerged Mars)).

? So the Mars function of competitiveness, aggression, and battle spirit will not initially be a well-integrated side of Dian?s personality. She would be likely to start out in life as a little to kind and non-aggressive, vulnerable to the manipulation of others. Mars would tend to erupt at critical moments to her surprise as much as anyone else?s, and it would take time and inner exploration to learn to handle Martial instincts in a conscious way?.

Inner Planets, PAGE 207.(1993).

Greene, by bringing in some more precise psychology, makes it more ?testable? as she is saying this person is disposed to be passive in her early years and more eruptive later on. So we could devise some measure of this. But as you say we are dealing with ?soft? science here.