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

Does unburied Tradition pull Modern astrology back?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Do you agree that Astrology is intrinsically the Science of Time?


Boris,
My instant response is that astrology is the art of time interpretation. Having said that, I realize that I have no clear thoughts to follow my statement with and am sheepishly leaving the stage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3459
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

Boris writes:


Quote:
I am afraid your attitude towards Uranus is a bit traditional


It's nothing to be afraid of. Wink

Quote:
After all don't you see that it's Uranus who makes our conversation possible


No I don't. Mercury makes it possible. This is the point of some of us traditionalists. The outers don't really add much to the chart. Communication was with us long before we were aware of Uranus. So was letter writing. To argue that electronic letter writing is Uranus and paper letter writing is Mercury is to split hairs unnecessarily, i.e., Ocam's razor.The technology that accomplishes this is secondary. Computers are communication and calculation devices, ergo: Mercury.

Sue writes:

Quote:
Well, naturally I couldn't agree more with this. My point is that they are not Hitler's truths but the truths of the collective at a particular time. Otherwise, this would not have happened. And this is not 'Truth' as such.


That these things happened is true. That they were good ideas is not.

Quote:
'that which is not polluted, which has no limit, no colour, no form, is motionless, naked, shining, which can only be apprehended by itself, the unalterable Good, the Incorporeal.'


I love this, and it really leads to other things about the tradtional viewpoint that I'm not going to touch on right now, but I can't square it with the other things being said about truth being relative. This does not seem to be a relative statement.

Quote:
To speak of whether George Bush is speaking the truth or John Kerry or whether anyone is speaking or comprehending the truth of any given situation is to miss the point of 'Truth' in its pure form.


I was not clear and I'm sorry about that. My point was this: If we are to accept the truth is relative then we cannot criticize George W. Bush (or any politician for that matter) for his behavior in the Iraq war, since he is behaving in a manner consistent with "his truth." We can disagree, but we can't criticize because whatever we say that is not in accordance with what Mr. Bush believes is relative and is our truth, and we are all entitiled to our truth, even Mr. BUsh. This is where I see the whole thing getting silly. Once we start to apply the idea of relative truth it falls apart, unless we believe that truth doesn't matter, and then we get Orwellian. "War is Peace; Truth is lies," etc The truth is the Iraq war was necessary or it wasn't. The truth can't be both. And if we play a word game or two to say that it can be both, then we become irrational. I am tall or I am not. I have blue eyes or I don't. I am pleasant company to some, or I'm not. There is nothing relative in these statements.

Socrates gave an example something like this 2500 years ago: the patient has a tumor. One doctor says it is malignant; another doctor says it is benign. They can't both be correct. One is right and one is wrong, or they are both wrong. They cannot both be right.

Have a great day folks.


Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Boris



Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 22
Location: Moscow

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom, good morning!

Quote:
Communication was with us long before we were aware of Uranus. So was letter writing. To argue that electronic letter writing is Uranus and paper letter writing is Mercury is to split hairs unnecessarily, i.e., Ocam's razor.The technology that accomplishes this is secondary. Computers are communication and calculation devices, ergo: Mercury.


OK, but isn't technology Uranian?

1)What Mercury is unable to do is to transform information.
2)Mercury can not transmit information momentarily over oceans.
3)Mercury would fail to display information for COLLECTIVE instant and simultaneous viewing and discussion ...

Here we enter the Realm of Uranus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
granny_skot



Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1634
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe some clarification is in order

1) define science:

Because from my position, it seems as though everyone has a different definition and is assuming everyone else agrees.

2) 'that which is not polluted, which has no limit, no colour, no form, is motionless, naked, shining, which can only be apprehended by itself, the unalterable Good, the Incorporeal.'

OY, this quote sounds lovely but is a sword Portia would find dificulty in wielding I think! Truth is not necessarily good, it is not necessarily shining, at times it is glaring, at times it seems buried in mystery. Truth is always subjective. I could probably go on for hours about why this definition of truth is a terrible sword! It has great emotional pull though, did Dylan use this as a definition? where is the quote from?

I still feel you confuse truth with fact. Funny thing I had thought to use a reference to hitler yesterday and changed my mind. That part of history does seem to reverberate glaring examples of logic and duty gone horribly awry!

Boris,

Ahhh an evolution of the question, I understand.

Astrology the science of time?

I would call astrology the observation of time. Few people seem to take full advantage of the information laid bare before them, but merely ride the timeline in awe... well from what I see. I think many people come to astrologers for comfort, to have you tell them that what they hope is true, is and what they hope is not true, is not. The artful astrologer can tell them what they observe and help them adjust to the facts, as opposed to their self inflicted truths... again this is but one point of view, mostly todays point of view, tomorrow we can hope brings further enlightenment.

I am always charmed by you Tom, even when I find your answers ascerbic. Wink


Granny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
OK, but isn't technology Uranian?


I don’t want to side-track the discussion with another debate about the various ways to interpret the meaning of a word, but I don’t see that it is. At least since the invention of the wheel every generation has had technology, and since the human species is inventive and ingenious, every generation has had its ‘new technology’ (although that will inevitably become ‘old hat’ to the generations that follow). Inventiveness and ingenuity are traits we assign to Mercury, and the word ‘mercurial’ doesn’t mean ‘quick, changeable and volatile’ for no reason.

Quote:
1)What Mercury is unable to do is to transform information.


Why not? It’s been associated with translating, transforming and transmuting as long as it’s been associated with relaying, and communicating.

Quote:
2)Mercury can not transmit information momentarily over oceans.


Our perspective of what ‘a moment’ is may be very limited (and it may also depend on the size of the ocean since primitive peoples relayed important messages across the sea quickly by lighting a trail of fires as beacons). If people accept that the essential principle of communicating a message or thought is attributed to Mercury, the principle remains in tact whether transmitted by speech, letter, signals, flags, flares, email, telephone, fax or psychic impression.

Quote:
3)Mercury would fail to display information for COLLECTIVE instant and simultaneous viewing and discussion ...
Here we enter the Realm of Uranus.


Whilst the capabilities of what we can do might have evolved, I still don’t see that there is any essential difference between the principle of delivering information ‘en mass’ via a speech in a public place, or a televised transmission of that speech to audiences who are not personally present. I’d also say that all forms of marketing, PR and propaganda can fall under the remit of Mercury, who is the trickster as well as the ‘messenger’.

I do understand your point, but I think that at best Uranus becomes an adverb to Mercury. I don’t see it as signifying the principle of communication or technology, but when it operates upon those matters it does so according to its own energy (often in a manner that crashes down boundaries, creates disruption, and brings a breakthrough or release). This may be quite relevant to your wider point because whilst it’s true that certain perspectives and techniques in astrology have become more prominent at different times, what has remained a golden thread of consistency is the way that the traditional planets maintained their essence. Mars is essentially a planet of conflict, Saturn a planet of loss or reduction whichever perspective or time period you study.

I’m dubious of anyone who claims that there is only one valid approach to astrology but there is a concern amongst a lot of credible astrologers today (including those who have great experience in and respect for modern techniques), that we are in danger of diminishing core principles and losing the practical application of solid and confident judgement by relying upon symbolism that is undecided or untested by tradition. Houses are symbolic, zodiac signs don’t exist as visible realities, hence it can be argued that their accepted meaning is heavily dependent upon our subjective understanding of that meaning. But the planetary energies are the absolute kingpin around which astrological lore is written. I haven’t yet come across a chart, from any period of history, that hasn’t made sense to me, providing I follow the author’s approach, because the planetary interpretations are entirely in line with that which I’ve learned through studying Lilly.

A study of history and historical approaches to astrology is much more revealing of consistencies than inconsistencies, providing we look for core principles rather than fashionable techniques. Let’s not undermine Mercury’s role in digital communication through novel technology because, really, every age that has gone before considered itself the ‘modern age’ at that time, and they all thought that their new inventions were amazing revolutions of ingenuity, innovation and science.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3459
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

Couldn't have said it better myself, Deb, in either a charming or acerbic way. Smile

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
granny_skot



Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1634
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:29 pm    Post subject: Uranus left turn Reply with quote

Uranus - okay I'm sidetracked Smile

Uranus was discovered 13 march 1781
other events of note in 1781
the Brittish surrendered to the upstart colonists in America at Yorktown,
the Articles of Confederation were written
John Hansen was the first president of the continental congress set up by the Articles of Confederation...
the City of Los Angeles was founded! by 44 Spanish colonists.
Imanual Kant published his book on reason
and
Charles Messier published his Catalog of Messier Objects (book of objects you can see with the naked eye in the sky)

if you look at other things attributed to Uranus, like electricity... Until Maxwells equations came along (developed during the years 1862-1874) electricity was for the most part a novelty. with the better understanding of electricity came the telegraph, etc... which also spawned such great investigations as the michelson morley experiment of 1887... frankly the sky from 1862 - 1890 must have been rather interesting because it was a time of incredible change all over the place!

The first computer programmer Ada Byron, Lady Lovelace was born on dec 10, 1815 and started work on the first programable machine in early 1834, though she heard of the theory behind it in late 1834. Her paper on the subject was published in 1846, incidently the year Neptune was discovered, so one might credibly argue the computer is a child of Neptune.

I think one may certainly contribute changabilty to Uranus, but I think maybe also the idea of self rule and of logic. I think placing Uranus on the fourth for immigration might not have been a bad idea, considering the things born at the time of its discovery. I would say ending up in America would certainly describe the end of the matter, but maybe not for the reasons you originally described. Smile

Woosh, I'm outa breath!

Granny!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This from Deb:
Quote:
I do understand your point, but I think that at best Uranus becomes an adverb to Mercury.

That is beautiful and it makes sense. Thank you.

Our subject is ‘Does Unburied Tradition Pull Modern Astrology Back?’. It is becoming more clear to me that it should. Hellenistic astrology shared it’s roots with Greek philosophy and that philosophy was not just about things and ideas, but was fundamentally about discovering meaning and the guidelines for living in a meaningful world.

We’ve talked about traditional astrology, truth, reality, science, technology, Mercury, Uranus, and Hitler. Discussions like this often become disembodied, lacking a container to hold them. There is nothing wrong with discussing these things and it does have it’s place. But as is so often the case in these times, an underlying personal philosophy is often not mentioned. Now I suppose people have their philosophy, but it seems to be considered to be in poor taste and too subjective to express it. Therefore we end up with a lot of detached heads talking about whatever that head is currently distracted with. I’m not only thinking of this discussion, but also of the babbling world around us.

And now about my reply to Boris that astrology is the art of time interpretation. I say that because it gives meaning to the cycles of the Sun, Moon and stars and makes those cycles a personal experience. The art is the personal involvement in blending the elements of meaning. It links the person with the environment and releases astrology from the head and puts it into the bones.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
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