|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EPurdue
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| By the way, astrologers don't have to get fingerprinted in every city or state in America. Only some. I've lived in four places in the US and none of those places required it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Eddy
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Tom for the law info. Fingerprints for prevention?! That’s extreme. I have to get my passport renewed end of this year and I’m already worried about my privacy. Europe too is getting worse on privacy. Is Philadelphia’s municipality firm religious? Perhaps the reason for this outlawing could be derived from a certain culture in a state.
[quote=”Deb”] Why do you find it bizarre that astrologers are upset Eddy? Don’t you think it’s perfectly understandable? Regardless of what zodiac is used, all zodiacs have a 12-fold division, and that’s a simple fact.[/quote]Perhaps I expressed myself in the wrong way but rather than meaning upset as being angry. This I understand, but I meant upset as being bothered by this news and suddenly feeling compelled to change the astrological techniques. Unless people don’t know anything about astrology, there will be no urge to change. Just like the last two decennia’s discoveries of new asteroids beyond Neptune’s orbit didn’t upset the (traditional) astrologers so doesn’t this remark on Ophiuchus. Every serious astrologer knows that it’s the 12-fold division which is to be used and this ‘discovery’ can’t hinder the technique. Just think about the change of the astronomical status of Pluto. Those who use Pluto weren’t really shocked and simply continued the use of it when Pluto was degraded by the IAU. Astrologers have a different gradation system than astronomers of qualifying planets/signs to be used. E.g. for the astrologers the Sun is a ‘planet’ even now we know it’s not a planet in the astronomical sense. What astronomers say need not to have big consequences for astrologers. The shocks already have taken place in the past, discovery of precession, heliocentrism, the Sun as a glowing ball of gas, but it didn’t largely change astrology. The changes rather came through cultural change than astronomical discoveries. The issue among astrologers isn’t the question what to do with Ophiuchus but rather the question of how to handle/respond to the ridicule.
I even doubt whether that astronomer is to blame. He probably doesn’t know anything about astrology. Newsmakers want sensation and in tv interview they pull out remarks eliciting just that remark and when the emission is not live, edited in a certain way to cause the unrest. It obviously worked, hence the number of discussions on the question. In the last few years, a hundred thousand asteroids were discovered, but no astrologer saw their system collapse because of this.
I'm reminded of this thread: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5260
Perhaps some US state should be added to this.
Ali Hussein Sibat: Do not travel to Saudi Arabia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul
Moderator
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 819
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I learned last week that in Germany and Sweden, if anyone moves from one town to another he is expected to register with either the police |
Eeeek! I'll add Germany and Sweden to the list of "Don't emmigrate here" countries. I'm surprised though, surely the Human Rights Act states that people have a right to privacy - I wonder if it's ever been challenged in the European Courts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed F
Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deb wrote: | ...
The problem is that astronomers don’t like to use longitude because it rests upon an earth-centre perspective – which is perfectly valid in its own terms, and which perfectly suits astrology’s earth-centred symbolism; but it’s not current amongst modern astronomers, because they are not interested in astronomical measurement which conforms to geocentric principles. ... |
Is this really true these days? Thirty some years ago when the US government printed the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, position were given in geocentric ecliptical and equatorial coordinates, referred to a standard equinox (1950 or 2000). Those are the same coordinates astrologers use (in both cases reduced to the equinox of date).
I'd be surprised to see ephemeris outputs expressed in another coordinate system. except perhaps helio (which I believe were included in the above ephemerides).
- Ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed F
Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul wrote: | ...
I disagree, I think the 'problem' is in educating on what astrology actually is and how it works, but we'll never manage to do that when astrologers are not given an equal voice to their detractors... |
But this becomes a bit difficult when even serious astrologers, who engage in critical thinking, fundamentally disagree about what astrology is and how it works.
- Ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
handn
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello
For a couple of reasons I think that astrologers should take a really long term view of this, irrespective of any short term actions being taken.
Firstly, astrology has a long, long history. The news cycle is 24 hours long. Don't overreact to it. It can chew you up and spit you out if you're not fully 'tooled up' for engaging with it, and even if you are. We can afford to think in terms of longer periods of time: decades, centuries, even millennia and longer. Isn't that 'long-termism' part of astrology and astronomy? If we join the media then we are joining the 24-hour cycle and will have to slot ourselves into it. What's to be gained from that? What's to be lost?
Secondly, astrology is strange; that's why it's fascinating and has a lot to teach us about what we are living in and what we go through. Our understanding of the reality we live in is incomplete, therefore our understanding needs more time to gestate. We can beaver away in the backroom working things out and bettering our understanding for a few more centuries if we want to. It's not a loss or a weakness or a fear of going head-to-head, it's a protection and a gift. We don't want to score an own goal. We can afford to have patience, and trust. The media chase ratings, nothing more, nothing less. Therefore the media will use whatever you give it for the purpose of gaining ratings, not for the purpose of representing you (the BBC is identical in this). The media know that the majority of the public believes in astrology, therefore the media cannot turn against astrology.
I suspect that the long-term solution is for astrologers to become increasingly literate in the subjects of astronomy and history and the history of astronomy and astrology. This website already plays a tremendously important role in that. This website is an 'essential and accidental dignity' which we can feed further strength into and draw strength from, precisely because it doesn't function in the way other websites and the media function. Let it and sites like it, not the people misrepresenting astrology in the media, be our touchstone. Let's not be pulled away from what we are already playing our part in doing, i.e. educating ourselves, educating each other, educating our clients, and educating the public.
Regards
H.
Last edited by handn on Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:03 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mattG
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see that hthe bbc news website has allowed a couple of astrologers the right of reply.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12207811
The gist of it is the reasons we know and it concludes that the 13th sign is an old chesnut and everyone is the same sign they always were.
The media and dumbed-down science seem to need each other, the former to fill space and the latter to see their stuff in print.
If the problem is that astrologers can't agree on what they are doing perhaps we need to look at this. It is more than a choice of saying I am a scientific atrologer or I am a mystical one. There seems to me to be some history behind this.
Matt
Last edited by mattG on Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed F
Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| matt23z wrote: | I see that hthe bbc news website has allowed a couple of astrologers the right of reply.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12207811
The gist of it is the reasons we know and it concludes that the 13th sign is an old chesnut and everyone is the same sign they always were.
The media and dumbed-down science seem to need each other, the former to fill space and the latter to see their stuff in print.
If the problem is that astrologers can't agree on what they are doing perhaps we need to look at this. It is more than a choice of saying I am a scientific atrologer or I am a mystical one. There seems to me to be some history behind this.
Matt |
A good starting point is "Astrology in the Year Zero". Not sure the conversations has progressed much in the last decade.
- Ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mattG
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed,
Some people simply cannot deal with something that it different from what they were taught. "Reality is not at fault - adjust your mind" as they used to say
Matt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike N
Joined: 20 Sep 2010
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| handn wrote: | I suspect that the long-term solution is for astrologers to become increasingly literate in the subjects of astronomy and history and the history of astronomy and astrology. Regards
|
Agreed. A Western Tropical Judicial Astrologer who can't discuss in some depth the ideas of those such as Plato and Aristotle is likely to be taken apart, and rightly so, by an intelligent sceptic.
Nick Campion addressed this in the Gary Phillipson interview where he mentioned Russell Grant had gone on TV. No disrespect to Mr Grant but I am not convinced if push comes to shove he could talk intelligently, and critically, for 3hrs about the Greeks, the Hermeticists and Jung. If someone of this calibre cares about astrology's public profile he ought to say no and leave it to people who can! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivia
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deb wrote: | No astrologer is disputing the constellation boundaries – this is a problem about constellation boundaries being confused for zodiacal signs.
|
On other forums, astrologers are indeed questioning the validity of the constellational boundaries, Deb. They never learnt any astronomy. For that matter, they can't read a chart that comes without an aspect grid and are shocked at those of us, who seemingly by magic, can look at a chart alone without benefit of lines or grids, and not only see aspects, but can tell whether the aspects are applying or separating.
In other words, many so-called astrologers nowadays seem to have skipped basic astronomy as well, sad as the situation is. Quite a lot of them think that Ophiuchus (we won't mention the constellations they don't know about) ought to be part of the zodiac, as that's more honest than 'hiding' it.
And then the conspiracy theories start, and its an absolute mess. And yes, many of these people DO receive money to read charts for clients.
I'm not in favour of astrological certification, that would be madness. Plus given the make-up of astrological societies these days, you, I, and 90% of the astrologers who post on this board would be out of work if we didn't quickly brush up on midpoints and what Pluto septile Venus means, for example, in a psychological or evolutionary way.
I'm not sure where the break happened, but it did - perhaps when astrology software became popular and one no longer had to learn at least a modicum of astronomy and maths to calculate charts by hand?
These people do consider themselves educated in astrology, but they're not only lacking any historical background (as were most of us until perhaps 20 years ago), they're also lacking the 'mechanical' background as it were.
If anything, I hope that the most recent trotting out of Ophiuchus will wake up the astrological community in that regard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed F
Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivia wrote: | ...
I'm not sure where the break happened, but it did - perhaps when astrology software became popular and one no longer had to learn at least a modicum of astronomy and maths to calculate charts by hand?
These people do consider themselves educated in astrology, but they're not only lacking any historical background (as were most of us until perhaps 20 years ago), they're also lacking the 'mechanical' background as it were... |
That's about right. The scary part is that even prominent astrological spokesmodels are getting it wrong in their refutations by saying that the sidereal zodiac is affected because it's based on constellations. A sad state of affairs for us fogeys - how did we fail?
- Ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zoidsoft
Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 434
Location: Las Vegas, NV
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Olivia wrote: |
In other words, many so-called astrologers nowadays seem to have skipped basic astronomy as well, sad as the situation is. Quite a lot of them think that Ophiuchus (we won't mention the constellations they don't know about) ought to be part of the zodiac, as that's more honest than 'hiding' it.
And then the conspiracy theories start, and its an absolute mess. And yes, many of these people DO receive money to read charts for clients. |
All successful fields have set standards for accreditation so that one can say who is a "doctor" and who is not. In Vegas, I've run into tarot readers posing as "astrologers" without even being that familiar with sun sign horoscopes in newspapers.
The more honest thing than "hiding it" is admitting you don't know astronomy. One of the factors contributing to this climate is the idea that everyone has a right to their opinion and some vague notion that goes along with it is that everyone's opinion should be treated equally. This couldn't be more wrong. As Alan White likes to say, everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Astrology needs a foundation of facts to survive.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| handn wrote: | | I suspect that the long-term solution is for astrologers to become increasingly literate in the subjects of astronomy and history and the history of astronomy and astrology. |
I once read somewhere (I believe about Indian astrologers) that in the past, astrologers were not only required to know astrology but also astronomy and history, poetry and be of good behaviour.
| Quote: | | I'm not in favour of astrological certification, that would be madness. Plus given the make-up of astrological societies these days, you, I, and 90% of the astrologers who post on this board would be out of work if we didn't quickly brush up on midpoints and what Pluto septile Venus means, for example, in a psychological or evolutionary way. |
Perhaps traditional astrologers themselves could unite to make an agreement of certification. So you won't have to fulfil the conditions of modern astrology.
It appears like the computer era destroyed all the necessary standards,...
| Olivia wrote: | | On other forums, astrologers are indeed questioning the validity of the constellational boundaries, Deb. They never learnt any astronomy. For that matter, they can't read a chart that comes without an aspect grid and are shocked at those of us, who seemingly by magic, can look at a chart alone without benefit of lines or grids, and not only see aspects, but can tell whether the aspects are applying or separating. |
..., but it's hard to imagine that it's that bad. This is shocking. Have they never opened an astrology book? I've always liked to do calculations by hand or just with a calculator (however I don't make my own ephemerides  ). I have the feeling that the two hemispheres of the brain get more balanced because of this. Several times when I did calculations for charts of others, after a while of calculating I got some insights that I couldn't have gotten from the chart. When continuing too much in the astrological part, this faded. On the other side when laying too much emphasis on the technical part it also faded.
Although this insight thing possibly has nothing to do with real astrology, I see that the ability of visualizing serves the purpose a lot. Moreover it's attractive to do. When I learned spherical trigonometry, this helped me a lot to translate visualizations into numbers and vice versa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed F
Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eddy wrote: | ... I have the feeling that the two hemispheres of the brain get more balanced because of this. Several times when I did calculations for charts of others, after a while of calculating I got some insights that I couldn't have gotten from the chart. When continuing too much in the astrological part, this faded. On the other side when laying too much emphasis on the technical part it also faded.
Although this insight thing possibly has nothing to do with real astrology, I see that the ability of visualizing serves the purpose a lot. Moreover it's attractive to do. When I learned spherical trigonometry, this helped me a lot to translate visualizations into numbers and vice versa. |
A lot of us who used to do charts manually have expressed this feeling - as you say, it's a matter of engaging both perspectives, and letting it cook over the time it takes to construct a chart.
And it is that bad. In some supposedly astrological settings, to bring up the technical underpinnings of methods is to court being accused of being a scientist or mathematician - horrors!
- Ed
Last edited by Ed F on Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Skyscript on Facebook